Collision Model

[VonMessa]

On HIS computer he completely missed you.

So, lets reverse the pilots.  You are the one flying and the other guy is on the runway.  You pull up at the last second and avoid him, but on his computer, due to the distance/time element, he sees you hit him and so he dies.  Well now, out of the blue, after you have passed him, you explode.

Your next venture to the bulletin board will be to yell about how you avoided the collision and yet died anyway.  Would that be a fair statement?

Right now you have absolute control over whether or not you collide with someone.  Using your solution, you give control to another player and take it away from you.  There is no way you will convince anyone you would be happy with that.

Even knowing how the collision model works, that still makes my

Wouldn't a better solution be to not get too close to the other guy?

[Scca]

Using your solution, you give control to another player and take it away from you.  There is no way you will convince anyone you would be happy with that.

He's already stated that he would rather he take damage if the other player takes damage even if he didn't see that damage taking place as far as he was concerned.

He doesn't like it, and stands by his opinion that he isn't the only one that shares his opinion.  I would be willing to put $100 that 99% of the people who understand the current collision model would choose it over his...  Takers?


</beating dead horse>

[LCADolby]

Right now you have absolute control over whether or not you collide with someone.

That statement is just wrong in my view. (This may take a lot of imagination to visualise.) For instance with the current system, when stall fighing an enemy and both pilots get into the flat scissors. Pilot A who is defending from pilot B. Pilot A brings the fight closer and closer to the stall to force an over shoot and get his reversal. In the turn at the end of the scissor, Pilot A turns right on his stall horn. On his FE he is clear and skims past the nose of his attacker left to right. Pilot B, trying to avoid overshooting straightens up a little throttles off a little goes to his on his stallhorn, as this happens, Pilot A side swipes him on his FE. Pilot B falls out of the sky or explodes instantly. Pilot A flys off without a scrach. It's no fault of either pilot, both were fighting each other honourably. It's the mixture of the internet and the collision system.

I don't think DES's "both should die idea" would ever work at all. I still am a believer that the current system is ok, just with a little modification:
Only if both Front Ends see a collision, then a collison is recorded both take damage. I see the problems with it are equal to what we have now, but, both pilots will not be able to complain.
Plus more decent fights will not end in one player being towered prematurely.

[Skuzzy]

He's already stated that he would rather he take damage if the other player takes damage even if he didn't see that damage taking place as far as he was concerned.

He doesn't like it, and stands by his opinion that he isn't the only one that shares his opinion.  I would be willing to put $100 that 99% of the people who understand the current collision model would choose it over his...  Takers?


</beating dead horse>

I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.

Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off.  He wants to reward the player who did not avoid the collision and penalize the player who did avoid it.


Dolby, my statement is absolutely true.  If you do not avoid the intersection with another object, then you take damage.  End of story.  If you avoid it, then you take no damage.  End of story.

You cannot wait for both ends to intersect as a determining factor.  That would be the same as disabling all collisions.  There is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing.  It cannot happen.  If it could happen, then guess what?  Your proposal is already in place!  Both ends see a collision, they both take damage.  Ta-da!

[grizz441]

Only if both Front Ends see a collision, then a collison is recorded both take damage. I see the problems with it are equal to what we have now, but, both pilots will not be able to complain.
Plus more decent fights will not end in one player being towered prematurely.

Wouldn't work well because it would let players fly through other players aircraft guns a blazing hoping the other guy misses them on their end.  It would make HO'ing a favorable tactic, so it would actually degrade gameplay.

As for your example of not having any control over being able to avoid the collision, it's only true past a point of no return.  You're right that if you put yourself in a spot where you have no control surface thus leave yourself open for a ram then yes, it is out of you control, but if you have the insight to forsee that situation earlier, then you will put your stalled aircraft in a better spot relative to your attacker thus thwarting his guns and his collision.

[VonMessa]

I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.

Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off.  He wants to reward the player who did not avoid the collision and penalize the player who did avoid it.


Dolby, my statement is absolutely true.  If you do not avoid the intersection with another object, then you take damage.  End of story.  If you avoid it, then you take no damage.  End of story.

You cannot wait for both ends to intersect as a determining factor.  That would be the same as disabling all collisions.  There is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing.  It cannot happen.  If it could happen, then guess what?  Your proposal is already in place!  Both ends see a collision, they both take damage.  Ta-da!

Are you telling me, after all this time, that you have no control over the interwebz?       

[LCADolby]

Wouldn't work well because it would let players fly through other players aircraft guns a blazing hoping the other guy misses them on their end.  It would make HO'ing a favorable tactic, so it would actually degrade gameplay.

As for your example of not having any control over being able to avoid the collision, it's only true past a point of no return.  You're right that if you put yourself in a spot where you have no control surface thus leave yourself open for a ram then yes, it is out of you control, but if you have the insight to forsee that situation earlier, then you will put your stalled aircraft in a better spot relative to your attacker thus thwarting his guns and his collision.

I wasn't getting at ramming, it's just a flat scissors reversal. Not all of us are that good at clairvoyance, (especially me) so those situations can often arrive.
HOing is already favourite tactic among many, I can't see it increasing, it's a very risky gamble. People already go in guns blazing constantly on the HO hoping the other guy explodes first before colliding nose on.

[Scca]

I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is....

Actually, I think he does based on this post... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634

[grizz441]

I wasn't getting at ramming, it's just a flat scissors reversal. Not all of us are that good at clairvoyance, (especially me) so those situations can often arrive.

So you're saying you could avoid the collision if you were better?   

[Skuzzy]

Actually, I think he does based on this post... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634

In that statement he did not clarify what he thought to be 'lag'.  In a later post he thinks it means related to the Internet connection speed and quality.  In reality the Internet connection speed/quality has little to nothing to do with 'lag' in this context.

[des506]

I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.

Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off.  

so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now...

p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...

but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to  you i shall rest and case and live with it..

[Skuzzy]

so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now...

No, your computer detected your plane intersecting with another object and thus damaged your plane.  The other player successfully missed your plane, according to his/her computer and flew away.  Both computers acted in accordance with with virtual world they were running.

p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...

but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to  you i shall rest and case and live with it..

No, your packets are not too slow and his are not too fast.  Makes no difference, in this context.  It is all about the physical distance your computer is from the other players computer.  The physical distance being the distance from your computer to the server and then to the other players computer.

If both computers were directly connected to our game server network, then those two computers would stand the best chance of their virtual worlds being identical (within a few milliseconds).  The longer the distance, the more the virtual worlds will differ.  Speed of your Internet connection is almost irrelevant as it is but a small percentage of the overall connection distance.

[grizz441]

so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now...

p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...

but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to  you i shall rest and case and live with it..

This is kind of a silly point to be trying to make about either being on the runway or being afk and using it as grounds that the collision model is in the wrong. As I said to Dolby u have the power in any situation to avoid the collision. If you are stationary on the ground aside from deserving to be vulched in the first place, u r at the mercy of lady luck subjecting yourself to such risk and are much more likely to get blown to smithereens by guns than a one ended collision.  Same goes for afk, you're really going to complain about getting killed while being afk? I mean really?

[Guppy35]

You know what the best part is?  We don't really die and we get new planes every time!

[Hopper]

On HIS computer he completely missed you.

So, lets reverse the pilots.  You are the one flying and the other guy is on the runway.  You pull up at the last second and avoid him, but on his computer, due to the distance/time element, he sees you hit him and so he dies.  Well now, out of the blue, after you have passed him, you lose an elevator.

Fixed