Damage modeling

[BnZs]

Look at the players we have playing now, landing gear is too much trouble to land, heck I'd bet most don't even bother to RTB. Creating a more accurate damage model would increase the frustration of players who are just trying to get the job done as quick as possible.

The job they are trying to get down is generally shooting down the other guy's plane. More things to damage is also more ways for them to do that. Also, players probably find getting pilot wounded/killed, getting control surfaces, or getting their whole damn wing shot off frustrating. Should we eliminate that too? Maybe we should just turn off damage like in the TA so players don't get frustrated. Or maybe planes should just get a big "health bar" like fighting games and simply go POOF when they take enough hits. That is the logical implication, if complexity in the damage model actually is frustrating to players.

People would enjoy more eye candy, but would they enjoy it as much if the planes were that much more difficult to fly? How many players do you think take the time to limp home in a plane with half a wing?

Undamaged planes would not become more difficult to fly. Damaged planes are ALREADY difficult to fly. Ever try flying with your vertical stab shot away? Mighty damn difficult. Your argument is based upon the assumption that getting your plane damaged can be frustrating, but that is true no matter what damage model is used.

At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.
 

Probably the same way you explain to him that his engine seized because he took a radiator hit and lost all fluid. Or how you explain to him that he spun into the ground because he lost his vertical stab. Again, the argument you keep trying to use-That players may be frustrated when they take damage and lose fights-applies to ALL damage that we could conceivably model.

As an example, I and others hate divebombing Lancs. To me a heavy bomber was built and designed to get to an operating alt well above 10k and level bomb targets using the site provided. However the majority of players get their giggles divebombing towns and camped spawns. While I, and a number of other players would "wish" something was done to stop this. However, I KNOW this is a game and it is in the best interest of HTC to keep as many people happy as they can and so retain as many subscriptions as possible. I think the change in damage model being discussed here falls into the same category.  

Lancs are not allowed to divebomb because it keeps the player base "happy". Lancs are allowed to divebomb because it is within the physical capabilities of the aircraft. Hitech has over and over affirmed his commitment to fidelity in modeling the equipment, and vehemently debunks any notion that the modeling is ever changed for gameplay, making people happy, etc.

[The Fugitive]

I will answer this one post from you. You have proving many times on this board that you either do not read the other post in the thread, or just plain don't understand what was written. So for the benefit of the doubt I'll answer you this one time in this thread.

 

The job they are trying to get down is generally shooting down the other guy's plane. More things to damage is also more ways for them to do that. Also, players probably find getting pilot wounded/killed, getting control surfaces, or getting their whole damn wing shot off frustrating. Should we eliminate that too? Maybe we should just turn off damage like in the TA so players don't get frustrated. Or maybe planes should just get a big "health bar" like fighting games and simply go POOF when they take enough hits. That is the logical implication, if complexity in the damage model actually is frustrating to players.

Where do you see this? I see the majority of players running away from fights. Most often its a single HO pass and they dive into their target on the ground to up and do the same again.

Undamaged planes would not become more difficult to fly. Damaged planes are ALREADY difficult to fly. Ever try flying with your vertical stab shot away? Mighty damn difficult. Your argument is based upon the assumption that getting your plane damaged can be frustrating, but that is true no matter what damage model is used.

And damaged planes will be more difficult to fly but now there will be no visual reason for it, broken cables, fuel lines hydraulic lines, jammed internal linkage.

Probably the same way you explain to him that his engine seized because he took a radiator hit and lost all fluid. Or how you explain to him that he spun into the ground because he lost his vertical stab. Again, the argument you keep trying to use-That players may be frustrated when they take damage and lose fights-applies to ALL damage that we could conceivably model.

Will you have time to explain that to them? Or will they leave in frustration BEFORE they find out? How many people seek out info on the game mechanics now? I'd love to see a page counter on the trainers site, or HTC info pages. I'd bet I get more hits on my cartoon page. I think you would see far to many say the any other types of damage than we have now would  be "that's lame!"

Lancs are not allowed to divebomb because it keeps the player base "happy". Lancs are allowed to divebomb because it is within the physical capabilities of the aircraft. Hitech has over and over affirmed his commitment to fidelity in modeling the equipment, and vehemently debunks any notion that the modeling is ever changed for gameplay, making people happy, etc.

Yes the planes are very much capable of that however it wasn't the primary way they were used. Much the same as bringing a CV group with in a stones throw of shore to attack a base. What CAN be done isn't necessarily what SHOULD be done. However that type of game play is allowed because it KEEPS players here and PAYING, not because it COULD be done.

[Tinkles]

Look at the players we have playing now, landing gear is too much trouble to land, heck I'd bet most don't even bother to RTB. Creating a more accurate damage model would increase the frustration of players who are just trying to get the job done as quick as possible.

The forum is the only place I see anything about a damage model change. A damage model and graphics have little to do with each other. People would enjoy more eye candy, but would they enjoy it as much if the planes were that much more difficult to fly? How many players do you think take the time to limp home in a plane with half a wing? Very few I'd say...though I do, even killed 999000 in a goon with my pony while I had only half a wing 

At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.

...and other than you say so and a few other here on the board I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by lack of detail in the DM. I don't play other games so I can give you an "instance" and wh would that matter, we are talking about THIS game.
 

If I have an aileron shot off I can see that and know that my plane is going to react accordingly. If a cable is shot out no its not so easy..... or are you tied to the text "damage list" that you can gamily bring up?

Vote on it? LOL!!!! This is HTC's playground not a democracy. We pay for admission that is all, we really don't have a say as to what goes in or not. What "you" want may not be what the majority wants and that is where HTC has to make their decisions. I think there are very few who play that would look forward to a more detailed damage model as it would get in the way of the "fun" they have playing the game. As they are the majority, I think that is how things will go.

As an example, I and others hate divebombing Lancs. To me a heavy bomber was built and designed to get to an operating alt well above 10k and level bomb targets using the site provided. However the majority of players get their giggles divebombing towns and camped spawns. While I, and a number of other players would "wish" something was done to stop this. However, I KNOW this is a game and it is in the best interest of HTC to keep as many people happy as they can and so retain as many subscriptions as possible. I think the change in damage model being discussed here falls into the same category.   

What I mentioned is what I was talking about. Graduated damage for ailerons, flaps rudder, and other components you can see, not so much cables and that sort.

I don't see why they wouldn't have a vote.  B29 had a vote, ME 410 had a vote.  I don't see why changing something that has been asked for a few years wouldn't get a vote. Even though I don't see it causing the uproar that you say it would, and even if HTC thought it would, they would still have a vote to determine if the 'majority' would want it or not.

[The Fugitive]

What I mentioned is what I was talking about. Graduated damage for ailerons, flaps rudder, and other components you can see, not so much cables and that sort.

I don't see why they wouldn't have a vote.  B29 had a vote, ME 410 had a vote.  I don't see why changing something that has been asked for a few years wouldn't get a vote. Even though I don't see it causing the uproar that you say it would, and even if HTC thought it would, they would still have a vote to determine if the 'majority' would want it or not.

In the 11+ years I've been here they have had 3 votes I think, all on plane suggestions. None on game play mechanics.

[Wiley]

At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.

Unless it's a flap.  Then you have to explain to them that even though they can't see it, it's actually stuck in the last position it was in.  Makes much more sense.  How do you explain to any of these poor, benighted souls that their landing gear has been damaged when they can't see it?  How can they POSSIBLY comprehend that their F6F has tail damage when it cannot be seen?  Madness!  You also can't see gun damage.  These people must be so, so incredibly confused every time they log into the game.

Just as a for instance, if there was a control linkage issue with your right aileron, it could conceivably 'not move' when you move the stick.  It could also show up in the damage display, to give people an indication that something was damaged on their aircraft.

...and other than you say so and a few other here on the board I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by lack of detail in the DM. I don't play other games so I can give you an "instance" and wh would that matter, we are talking about THIS game.

So you can't.  That's ok it was pretty much a rhetorical question anyways.

If I have an aileron shot off I can see that and know that my plane is going to react accordingly. If a cable is shot out no its not so easy..... or are you tied to the text "damage list" that you can gamily bring up?

If it doesn't move, there's something wrong with it.  Simple.

Wiley.

[Wildcatdad]

Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
 

[Wiley]

Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
 

I honestly think graduated damage with the graphics to go with it would be more intuitive for people.  They can see 1/4 of their right aileron is missing, the aileron doesn't work as well as it did when it was undamaged.  There are holes in their left wing, it doesn't work as well as it did when it was undamaged.  The internal stuff on the engine or control systems I could live without, I just think it would be an improvement.

Wiley.

[Wildcatdad]

That's what I've been wishing for. I just don't get how/why it would be negative? 
 

[Arlo]

Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
 

It's a frustration thing, I'm thinkin'. I find the occasional pilot wound or engine oil hit to be a different challenge altogether. An oil hit may keep me in the fight for a bit since I generally fly Corsairs and they can last. A one ping head-on pilot wound with a base nearby becomes a fight/flight for survival to me. We're talking no damage to the plane but a single round coming through my canopy and grazing me. I'll break from the fight and land, if possible. Some may say, 'Well, that doesn't happen often.' It happened to me seven times in a row one night. I shoulda logged and bought a lotto ticket, perhaps. Imagine if one ping control surface cable hits compounded that. Now if we're talking about coding such (a joy and a breeze to do, some seem to think) and reducing the randomized percentage for each type of debilitating single hit (does anyone really think damage is truly subsystem targeted in this game?) - eh ok. But is it worth the wish to have that much time get in the way of even one new plane model (or ship or new terrain graphic, etc.)?

[Wiley]

(does anyone really think damage is truly subsystem targeted in this game?)

Um... Yeah, I do.  The subsystems aren't outlined in any major detail, but if you hit the spinner on a D9, it takes out the radiator.  Shoot pilot with .45, pilot wound/kill.  It's pretty evident.

But is it worth the wish to have that much time get in the way of even one new plane model (or ship or new terrain graphic, etc.)?

I'd say yes, going hand in hand with improved plane models/graphics.  It's an improvement to gameplay, which to me is a much better improvement than a new ship or terrain graphic because it makes every aspect of the game different and better IMO.

Wiley.

[Arlo]

Um... Yeah, I do.  The subsystems aren't outlined in any major detail, but if you hit the spinner on a D9, it takes out the radiator.  Shoot pilot with .45, pilot wound/kill.  It's pretty evident.

Hmmm. So you are certain that subsystem hits aren't part of a randomizer algorithm modified by angle of attack? What is that based on other than 'pretty evident' perception? (You haven't seen the threads where someone complained that they took a rad hit from behind, I take.)

I'd say yes, going hand in hand with improved plane models/graphics.  It's an improvement to gameplay, which to me is a much better improvement than a new ship or terrain graphic because it makes every aspect of the game different and better IMO.

Everyone has a right to one. My opinion is that it's not as critical as, say, upgrading the 3d models of all the planes and vehicles.

[The Fugitive]

Unless it's a flap.  Then you have to explain to them that even though they can't see it, it's actually stuck in the last position it was in.  Makes much more sense.  How do you explain to any of these poor, benighted souls that their landing gear has been damaged when they can't see it?  How can they POSSIBLY comprehend that their F6F has tail damage when it cannot be seen?  Madness!  You also can't see gun damage.  These people must be so, so incredibly confused every time they log into the game.

Just as a for instance, if there was a control linkage issue with your right aileron, it could conceivably 'not move' when you move the stick.  It could also show up in the damage display, to give people an indication that something was damaged on their aircraft.

So you can't.  That's ok it was pretty much a rhetorical question anyways.

If it doesn't move, there's something wrong with it.  Simple.

Wiley.

Remember, I'm player "Devils Advocate" here. Personally I'm all for anything HTC does. I've been here for almost 12 and a half years and have seen ALL the changes. Some I like some ehhh not so much. But it all works out in the end.

The point here is from what I see of todays players.... and I'm talking about those in the game, NOT the mouth pieces we all love here on the boards   me included!  This type of damage model isn't something they "look" for, to them it's just going to be "awww crap, my plane isn't flying right!" followed closely by "I wish HITECH would fix these bugs in the flight models".

Most players are NOT into the aspect of flying and fighting in a WWII era fighter. I'd bet most would be happy if they looked like boxes as long as they were detail, pretty boxes. To them it's just a tool to get to the "win" they are looking for and at this point the "win" is joining up in a big group to roll an undefended base as quickly as they can.

[Wiley]

Hmmm. So you are certain that subsystem hits aren't part of a randomizer algorithm modified by angle of attack? What is that based on other than 'pretty evident' perception? (You haven't seen the threads where someone complained that they took a rad hit from behind, I take.)

I've seen plenty of threads.  One specific, I can't remember who, but it was his pet peeve that the dora took a lot of funny angle rad hits.  He tested it with a jeep and a .50 and discovered it was the spinner that caused rad hits, which could be struck from some pretty wide angles.  What are you basing your statement on?

Everyone has a right to one. My opinion is that it's not as critical as, say, upgrading the 3d models of all the planes and vehicles.

I'm all for it.  I just don't like the fact that a plane can absorb dozens of MG rounds splashed across the entire airframe and still fly factory fresh.  Anything we put in here is just noise anyways.  HTC has their priority list and their plans, and the only reason to post anything in the wishlist is to possibly give them ideas, not change their minds.

Remember, I'm player "Devils Advocate" here. Personally I'm all for anything HTC does. I've been here for almost 12 and a half years and have seen ALL the changes. Some I like some ehhh not so much. But it all works out in the end.

The point here is from what I see of todays players.... and I'm talking about those in the game, NOT the mouth pieces we all love here on the boards  me included!  This type of damage model isn't something they "look" for, to them it's just going to be "awww crap, my plane isn't flying right!" followed closely by "I wish HITECH would fix these bugs in the flight models".

Most players are NOT into the aspect of flying and fighting in a WWII era fighter. I'd bet most would be happy if they looked like boxes as long as they were detail, pretty boxes. To them it's just a tool to get to the "win" they are looking for and at this point the "win" is joining up in a big group to roll an undefended base as quickly as they can.

I don't agree with that assessment.  If you put two airplane games up, one that had minecraft-style graphics where you shoot the box shaped wing until it falls off, and then put it beside a game that had a photorealistic airplane shedding little bits of metal as it was gradually sawed apart by bullets, and they were both using identical flight models I think you'd have far, far more 'average gamers' wanting to play the second one.

If anything, I'd expect the game would be far more popular if they upped the detail on the DM with graphical effects to match it and dumbed the hell out of the FM.  I sincerely doubt that'll ever happen though.

Wiley.

[Arlo]

I've seen plenty of threads.  One specific, I can't remember who, but it was his pet peeve that the dora took a lot of funny angle rad hits.  He tested it with a jeep and a .50 and discovered it was the spinner that caused rad hits, which could be struck from some pretty wide angles.  What are you basing your statement on?

Rounds hitting the spinner causing radiator damage is not an example of the radiator subsystem being specifically target-able. Do you think all spinner hits result in radiator damage? If that's the case, we'd actually be better off with a random algorithm. It would be easier to code and you may well get all sorts of other detailed damage out of it. Make ... the ... percentages ... low.

[Wiley]

Rounds hitting the spinner causing radiator damage is not an example of the radiator subsystem being specifically target-able. Do you think all spinner hits result in radiator damage? If that's the case, we'd actually be better off with a random algorithm. It would be easier to code and you may well get all sorts of other detailed damage out of it. Make ... the ... percentages ... low.

Yeah, it is, and yes, by his testing, hitting the spinner damaged the radiator every time, no matter the angle.  We can quibble about what it should be, but from what I've seen and read, whatever gets hit takes damage, not some random chance for a hit on the 'engine zone' to either take out the radiator, oil, or whatever.

As I stated earlier, I think the best solution is to have the critical components at least roughed out in an outline, damage to whatever you hit should cause damage to whatever you hit.  Random is stupid.  I'm not fond of the radiator taking damage off the spinner either, just FYI.

Wiley.