The "shot" down principle

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I don’t know if anyone else agrees with this but I hope at some point the developers change the criteria for being “shot down/destroyed”

 

If the aircraft is rendered un-flyable you bail or get killed etc then that is not a problem 

 

With that in mind, I took a minor hit on my aircraft the other night, nothing fell off and the aircraft was in a perfectly flyable condition. That being said I fluffed the landing and broke the landing gear. It was then registered as being destroyed/shot down by another player.

 

I had a similar situation where I was hit in the fuel tank, ran out of fuel just in front of home airbase and landed intact. A player was credited with a kill.

 

Realistically that aircraft could be repaired and made flyable probably in a matter of hours.

 

This is just personal ramblings and I know there are many other more important things to worry about. I just hope at some point we will get a system overhaul for determining aerial victory credits.

 

Regards

 

Custard

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Getting a shot down message (kill of you are on the other side of the fence) while the aircraft is still airborne needs removing. Give people the intense feeling of trying to glide back to base/friendly territory instead of X has been shotdown by Y....you might as well just bail there and then to jump in another aircraft!

 

Getting a kill if an aircraft made it back to base and did a bad landing is equally ridiculous and I hope it is removed one day.

[SR-F_Winger]

+10000

If the aircraft can make it back to friendly territory and land (even outsidelanding) safely this should not be counted as an actual air victory.

[Blakhart]

+1

 

Old system from IL-2 is good. 

Enemy will land in the base you dont get kill.

Other situation - the plane is lost and you get 1 ak.

Easy.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

To be considered a kill you need to see it going down. If you get down out of combat zone, you can be counted as damaged or a probable.

 

That's why I have my personal paper kill log book. No kill stealing or computer errors.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

To be considered a kill you need to see it going down. If you get down out of combat zone, you can be counted as damaged or a probable.

 

That's why I have my personal paper kill log book. No kill stealing or computer errors.

 

Couldn't agree more

[Finkeren]

It'll obviously take some major revamping of the scoring system, so it isn't something I'd advocate right now, but I'd like to see a damaged/propable score for any aircraft that crashes beyond visual range.

[Saurer]

But isn't it still a victory for the enemy pilot if he removed you from the fight? You as a pilot are still alive and can fight another day and that is what matters for you

[6./ZG26_Emil]

But isn't it still a victory for the enemy pilot if he removed you from the fight? You as a pilot are still alive and can fight another day and that is what matters for you

 

Not according to the rules of the LW or VVS during the war

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Getting a shot down message (kill of you are on the other side of the fence) while the aircraft is still airborne needs removing. Give people the intense feeling of trying to glide back to base/friendly territory instead of X has been shotdown by Y....you might as well just bail there and then to jump in another aircraft!

 

Getting a kill if an aircraft made it back to base and did a bad landing is equally ridiculous and I hope it is removed one day.

 

 

+1

[Saurer]

Not according to the rules of the LW or VVS during the war

 

Thats the point, you can not really implement the real rules as often confirmation of a wingman was needed. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Thats the point, you can not really implement the real rules as often confirmation of a wingman was needed. 

 

You can to a degree and doing what I said in my first post removes two ridiculous aspects of the scoring. The rest is how you want to play the sim.

 

Aircraft that made it back to base in any condition were never counted as kills unless as part of an 'overclaim'

 

LW pilots were often (always?) told that an aircraft that had force landed in friendly territory were NOT kills unless they were destroyed on the ground.

[von_Tom]

Just remove the individual scores system altogether and replace it with a map objectives achieved percentage or something like that.

 

 

 

von Tom

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Il-2:1946 has introduced shared kills in one of their latest patches, in theory it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Generally speaking it works well, and it is based on percentage of damage inflicted if I remember correctly. When someone heavily damages a plane but you land a single cannon round on it that sends it into a spin or something and you don't get a shared kill because the percentage fell short. Otherwise, nearly all the time two planes partake in destroying a bandit and it actually crashes away from the base, it is a shared kill.

 

Introducing historically accurate confirmation is tricky because Soviet pilots would need another independent unit to confirm it by finding the wreck - i.e. if it fell beyond Soviet lines, tough luck unless infantry finds the wreck somehow.

 

German pilots needed either guncam of the aircraft being destroyed or witness confirmation from the air or ground. In other words, if you filmed yourself hitting the plane but failed to capture its destruction (as far as I understand at least), tough luck. Ground confirmation, like the Soviet method, is impossible beyond your lines, and if your wingmen RTB'd, were tangled in a fight or just didn't see it happen you were also out of luck.

 

A fun idea though would be to have pilots filing their own claims after landing, then at the end of each mission (MP or SP) you get an actual losses report. Should be fun to compare

[SharpeXB]

I like having the incentive in the game to land your damaged plane well and therefore not be considered "shot down" it's the best fun challenge in the sim. But if you attempt landing and crack up your bird , you're "shot down"

A game can't duplicate the real world award criteria but giving players a challenge is good fun.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Not only that but in real life you probably would have been listed as a claim by the other side. Although it lead to over claiming, I think in the historical context the implementation isn't too far from the mark.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I like having the incentive in the game to land your damaged plane well and therefore not be considered "shot down" it's the best fun challenge in the sim. But if you attempt landing and crack up your bird , you're "shot down"

A game can't duplicate the real world award criteria but giving players a challenge is good fun.

 

I don't see how a collapsed landing gear and bent prop is remotely like being shot down nor would it be concidered a kill by the LW and probably not the VVS.

 

A game cannot duplicate everything but how do you feel when you get a kill confirmed 10-15 minutes just because someone pranged their aircraft? It's not a real kill and it feels a bit fake to me...it's not something I can celebrate honestly...not like getting a flamer or PK.

[SharpeXB]

I don't see how a collapsed landing gear and bent prop is remotely like being shot down nor would it be concidered a kill by the LW and probably not the VVS.

 

A game cannot duplicate everything but how do you feel when you get a kill confirmed 10-15 minutes just because someone pranged their aircraft? It's not a real kill and it feels a bit fake to me...it's not something I can celebrate honestly...not like getting a flamer or PK.

It's a game... The "real" criteria are too complex to implement. Bottom line if they land undamaged they rob your victory. If they crash you got em ;-)

RoF is pretty much the same way. It's an incentive to learn to land really well which is a good thing. In the real world you'd still have taken an enemy plane out of service even if it got away, games just have omnipotent score keepers.

Edited September 16, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Brano]

I like the way it is handled in Pat Wilsons Campaign Generator in RoF (and hope it will be implemented also in his BOS port).You have to claim your aerial victories after each sortie.Then there is some background condition to be met,which has impact on whether HQ will confirm/reject your claim.This condition (my speculation) might be smtg like enemy crashed within certain time/distance from the encounter point or such.I just love that feature

[SharpeXB]

I like the way it is handled in Pat Wilsons Campaign Generator in RoF (and hope it will be implemented also in his BOS port).You have to claim your aerial victories after each sortie.Then there is some background condition to be met,which has impact on whether HQ will confirm/reject your claim.This condition (my speculation) might be smtg like enemy crashed within certain time/distance from the encounter point or such.I just love that feature

Oh yeah that's excellent. But it's really just for SP where you're score counts for a career etc. your points in MP don't really mean anything so this issue there doesn't matter. Maybe there will be something done with MP points in the future? Right now they have no purpose. Edited September 16, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Brano]

I think simmilar conditions can be implemented also for MP.Enemy must die/crash/burn either in your or your buddies visual range to be confirmed.Or near your groundforces = they can confirm the kill.Anyone able to disengage from combat,fly beyond frontline to his friendly teritory and outside of visual range of enemy will be just probable/damaged. 

[BraveSirRobin]

If you want realism you should get to claim every aircraft that you shoot at and then get credit for most of them even though the enemy aircraft was practically undamaged.

[BeastyBaiter]

The kill system in BoS and every other flight sim is unrealistic. However, how exactly can it be improved? To get a confirmed kill in real life, most militaries require at least 1 witness or a wrecked plane that can be inspected by ground troops. It sounds simple, but how exactly does one program it into C++ or any other programming language in a way that wouldn't infuriate many players? Even if it were included perfectly, the vast majority of players would likely be submitting endless "kill not counted" bug reports. I think the current approach is reasonable. It's simple and clear even if it isn't always representative.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

If you want realism you should get to claim every aircraft that you shoot at and then get credit for most of them even though the enemy aircraft was practically undamaged.

Which happened in a fair percentage of all wartime claims IRL.

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

I like having the incentive in the game to land your damaged plane well and therefore not be considered "shot down" it's the best fun challenge in the sim. But if you attempt landing and crack up your bird , you're "shot down"

A game can't duplicate the real world award criteria but giving players a challenge is good fun.

I agree with this. Landing heavily damaged plane with wounded pilot and denying someone his kill is second most pleasant thing in this game.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

It's a game... The "real" criteria are too complex to implement. Bottom line if they land undamaged they rob your victory. If they crash you got em ;-)

 

 

Yep its a Sim, but I don't think pranging your own aircraft should constitute a "kill" for another player if you have taken minor damage.

[BraveSirRobin]

Yep its a Sim, but I don't think pranging your own aircraft should constitute a "kill" for another player if you have taken minor damage.

 

How do you propose that they determine that you crashed because you butchered the landing instead of crashing because you were damaged?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

How do you propose that they determine that you crashed because you butchered the landing instead of crashing because you were damaged?

I have no idea as I'm not a computer programmer but I'm sure that there must be some way?

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Maybe with some kind of counter, like if you took 30% damage, after 3min without taking hits you can only be counted as crashed and not shot down. 

[SharpeXB]

How do you propose that they determine that you crashed because you butchered the landing instead of crashing because you were damaged?

Right. It's a computer. How would it know?

somebody gets hits on you + your plane crashes = you've been shot down.

[BraveSirRobin]

I have no idea as I'm not a computer programmer but I'm sure that there must be some way?

 

I am a computer programmer and I don't know how you would do it.  You could put a time limit on how long you get the kill after causing damage when the target crashes.  But anything you do is really just a random guess.  There is no good way to tell the difference between a crash and a shootdown.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I am a computer programmer and I don't know how you would do it.  You could put a time limit on how long you get the kill after causing damage when the target crashes.  But anything you do is really just a random guess.  There is no good way to tell the difference between a crash and a shootdown.

 

I wouldn't have an issue with a time limit personally.

 

Remember this is nothing to do with "I got killed this game sux!!" and just some observations on aspects of the sim that are a bit squiffy....I point you back to the other bugbear I have which is where your engine quits and are already 'shot down' regardless of whether you manage a perfect landing or not.

 

I hate to say this but are people arguing against more worried about losing the odd 'kill' than immersion?

I am a computer programmer and I don't know how you would do it.  You could put a time limit on how long you get the kill after causing damage when the target crashes.  But anything you do is really just a random guess.  There is no good way to tell the difference between a crash and a shootdown.

 

You do it the same way the program knows you RTB'd and didn't land in the middle of a field I suppose?

[BraveSirRobin]

You do it the same way the program knows you RTB'd and didn't land in the middle of a field I suppose?

 

So then you show up as a kill if you go off the end of the runway and no kill if you crash on the runway?  Really, there is no good way.  Handing out a kill to the person that damaged you is as good as any other random method of trying to decide.

[Y-29.Silky]

I actually like the kill system.. Your pilot didn't die, you don't get credit for a loss, it would end up being a probable in real life, so what's the big deal? I see it as a win-win for both parties. The reason why you made it back in the forst place is probably because he stopped engaging you because of the kill feed. The last thing I like besides vulching, is the War Thunder mentality of having to shoot every enemy aircraft into 8 different pieces with a ball of fire like a Michael Bay movie..

Edited September 16, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[VBF-12_Snake9]

I remember in 1946 if you ditched your plane in the water beside your aircraft carrier, it was considered a perfect landing by points. Did that many times in a damaged plane.

[FuriousMeow]

BSR is right, there isn't really a way to do this to the great requirements of what so many expect - especially in multiplayer.

 

The current method may not be the best, but there won't be any way to code in to get confirmation from a second source like was historically required. Or getting confirmation from a guncam which usually required structural failure or something that clearly crippled the plane, which is pretty much what the current system does.

 

There's no way to build a module that will be able to tell if a friendly was looking at your "victory" go in.

 

For something more simplistic, I could see building a module server side that would just run a query when a plane goes in that determines if there was a friendly plane within a certain distance of the "victory" and the "victor" and then assigns the "victory" to the "victor" based on an automatic process. That requires a plane to go hard in, or kill the engine. Now it gets to the point of a ditch, landing in a remote area not at a field and exiting before the engine dies and no catastrophic failure. That's a forced down, and so the server module then has to analyze local friendlies again to determine if anyone was nearby when the plane ditched to assign victory. That is already incredibly complex to build and only covers two scenarios.

[Wulf]

I don’t know if anyone else agrees with this but I hope at some point the developers change the criteria for being “shot down/destroyed”

 

If the aircraft is rendered un-flyable you bail or get killed etc then that is not a problem 

 

With that in mind, I took a minor hit on my aircraft the other night, nothing fell off and the aircraft was in a perfectly flyable condition. That being said I fluffed the landing and broke the landing gear. It was then registered as being destroyed/shot down by another player.

 

I had a similar situation where I was hit in the fuel tank, ran out of fuel just in front of home airbase and landed intact. A player was credited with a kill.

 

Realistically that aircraft could be repaired and made flyable probably in a matter of hours.

 

This is just personal ramblings and I know there are many other more important things to worry about. I just hope at some point we will get a system overhaul for determining aerial victory credits.

 

Regards

 

Custard

 

 

OMG, if I received a dollar each time I've carefully nursed my stricken 190 back to base, landed to a fashion (well, you know... sort of),  hit 'E' and then sat there as the switch-off sequence does it's thing only to watch as the wings and undercart collapse around me and then, to make matters worse,  getting told that some swine "destroyed" me - I'd be a wealthy man.

 

But worse than the bruised ego; it's a real disincentive to putting in the time and effort needed into what is often a long and difficult return journey.  I think, if you can get the machine back onto the airfield without being killed, the sortie should be counted as a success.   

[wtornado]

I don’t know if anyone else agrees with this but I hope at some point the developers change the criteria for being “shot down/destroyed”

 

If the aircraft is rendered un-flyable you bail or get killed etc then that is not a problem 

 

With that in mind, I took a minor hit on my aircraft the other night, nothing fell off and the aircraft was in a perfectly flyable condition. That being said I fluffed the landing and broke the landing gear. It was then registered as being destroyed/shot down by another player.

 

I had a similar situation where I was hit in the fuel tank, ran out of fuel just in front of home airbase and landed intact. A player was credited with a kill.

 

Realistically that aircraft could be repaired and made flyable probably in a matter of hours.

 

This is just personal ramblings and I know there are many other more important things to worry about. I just hope at some point we will get a system overhaul for determining aerial victory credits.

 

Regards

 

Custard

Ya i noticed that too I was shot up and damaged and I landed at my own airbase intact and it still was

considered destroyed.

 

Devs must be listening to our ground mechanics hollering and complaining or they were ground

mechanics in a past life.hehe

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

OMG, if I received a dollar each time I've carefully nursed my stricken 190 back to base, landed to a fashion (well, you know... sort of),  hit 'E' and then sat there as the switch-off sequence does it's thing only to watch as the wings and undercart collapse around me and then, to make matters worse,  getting told that some swine "destroyed" me - I'd be a wealthy man.

 

But worse than the bruised ego; it's a real disincentive to putting in the time and effort needed into what is often a long and difficult return journey.  I think, if you can get the machine back onto the airfield without being killed, the sortie should be counted as a success.   

But it's just points for the other guy and your aircraft is unusable from a practical standpoint. It doesn't put a "death" into your loss column if you nurse it home. So, again, from a practical standpoint, it is a success.

Edited September 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Wulf]

But it's just points for the other guy and your aircraft is unusable from a practical standpoint. It doesn't put a "death" into your loss column if you nurse it home. So, again, from a practical standpoint, it is a success.

 

 

Damnitt Murf, don't get all logical on me!  Yes, you may be right but notwithstanding all of that, it really sticks in my craw knowing some guy on the other side is quietly smirking to himself. Ugh Jayziz!!!