I don't feel like typing it all out again. Here is a copy/past job from past threads:
_____________________________ _____________________
If both FEs must see the collision for the collision to occur there will essentially be no collisions anymore.
Tactics to be derived from this involve things like intentionally flying through the target aircraft while firing as it is impossible to miss from one foot away from the target. This is not a small change and it would not be rare.
Another effect would be the switch to free form manuvering without regard to the proximity of your airframe to the enemies airframe. It would remove one of things that a combat pilot in a close dogfight needed to track from the game.
This kind of change in tactics essentially destroys any and all simulation of real world tactics. The rules have been changed so much that it is no longer a simulation of WWII air combat tactics.
Personally I have no interest in flying in an environment in which the need to avoid collisions is not part of the tactics used.
_____________________________ _____________________
There are only four ways of modeling damaging collisions in online games, all of which have been tried at some point by HiTech. The possibilities are: both are damaged, neither are damaged, the aircraft on the FE that detects the collision is damaged and the aircraft on the FE that does not detect the collision is damaged.
I will give a breif overview of the pros and cons of each system and a breif look a gunnery modeling as well.
Both Are Damaged:
Pros: This most accurately simulates the resulting damage of a collision between two real aircraft. This system can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the damage.
Cons: It can be seen as unegalitarian because players suffer collisions that they were not responsible for. Ramming becomes a major combat tactic in the simulation. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge and it'll cost him 5 minutes of flight time against your 30 seconds of flight time. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
Neither Are Damaged:
Pros: It can be seen as egalitarian because both survive.
Cons: This is the least realistic solution. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. HOs would be even more common. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
The Aircraft On The FE That Detects The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: Each party has an independant chance to avoid the collision and is rewarded for their success. It can be seen as egalitarian because only the responsible party suffers. Realistic behavior is encouraged.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
The Aircraft On The FE That Does Not Detect The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: None.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It removes the reward for avoiding collisions. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit and if that doesn't kill him your aircraft certainly will. HOs would be even more common. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
Bullet Hits
The Target Is Damaged If Bullet Hits Occur On Either FE:
Pros: All bullet hits anywhere cause damage, e.g. if it looks like he hit you, to you or him, he hits.
Cons: Sometimes the shooter is rewarded even though he missed his intended target. Effectively doubles the target's size for the purpose of "Spray and Pray" shooting.
The Target Is Damaged Only If the Bullet Hit Occurs On Both FEs:
Pros: Bullets only hit if the target absolutely did not dodge.
Cons: Aircraft would be insanely hard to hit, hitting being more a matter of luck than of skill. Massively frusterating for the shooter.
Only The Shooter's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: The shooter is only rewarded for his hitting intended target.
Cons: The target has a slightly reduced SA and slightly reduced ability to dodge.
Only The Target's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: Maximizes the benefits of the target's SA and the target's ability to dodge.
Cons: The shooter must guess where the target is on the target's FE and is thus shooting at ghosts. Only dead 6 o'clock and dead 12 o'clock shots have a good chance of hitting, if the target hasn't changes course on the target's FE.
When you think about these things, try not to think about how it has affected you personally in the game, rather think about it in the terms of its effects from a theoretical player A's and player B's perspective and from the overall effect it would have on gameplay. Some of you have commented that the current system is exploitable and suggested a different system in its place. It doesn't seem that you tried to think of exploits in your proposed system. Think of those and compare the exploits of each system. Which is worse? Once you've done all of that, then present your arguments.
Until we get 10ms or faster ping times for everyone the system used in AH generates the most realistic, least frusterating, least exploitable results of the available systems.
