The "shot" down principle

[Y-29.Silky]

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.

Actually I remember that too. And if you did it behind enemy lines, you were captured. That could be implemented within that airfield radius. Maybe it comes down to the mission editor?

[SharpeXB]

Actually I remember that too. And if you did it behind enemy lines, you were captured. That could be implemented within that airfield radius. Maybe it comes down to the mission editor?

I think in RoF even if you land perfectly, behind enemy lines you're considered "shot down".

[Comes]

I think in RoF it's like:

If you land with your aircraft still intact, it counts as a Landing. Does not matter if it is behind enemy lines or not.

But as soon as your engine is broken, it counts as shot down/crashed. 

[SharpeXB]

Bottom line is that "cheating death" so to speak by skillfully landing your damaged plane is a thrill which shouldn't be taken away. It follows that being rewarded for this conversely means being penalized for failing. The damaged landings really show off everything that makes BoS great, flight modeling, ground handling, tree collisions, everything. It's the best a flight sim can get when you pull off a spectacular save like this. And it lets the player make a real use of the game aspects which 1CGS worked hard to include.

If you didn't get "saved" by landing, everyone would just bail out and all that nice physics and damage model would go to waste. But "saved by landing" means not crashing. Crashing = shot down.

[MarcAnton]

Sadly this is the russian way of "counting aerial victorys"  and its the same ridiculous system like in RoF and nobody of the devs will ever care about it ....

[BraveSirRobin]

Emils idea would be much better than the current rules.

 

Just because it is not 'flawless' doesn't mean it wouldn't be 'better'

 

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the better.  I actually think the current system is significantly better.  If the aircraft is disabled the person who caused the most damage gets the kill.  That is much better than taking away a kill because someone managed to crash at an airfield.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the better.  I actually think the current system is significantly better.  If the aircraft is disabled the person who caused the most damage gets the kill.  That is much better than taking away a kill because someone managed to crash at an airfield.

 

But it's not a kill though, same with the B17 that gets home with bits falling off it yet the crew survives.

 

You're not taking a kill from someone (they didn't get the kill or the plane wouldn't have flown back to base) you're handing out free kills for almost nothing. It's also historically incorrect and breaks immersion imho.

[BraveSirRobin]

But it's not a kill though, same with the B17 that gets home with bits falling off it yet the crew survives.

 

If the aircraft is disabled it's a kill.  Comparing to WW2 kills is utterly ridiculous, as far more kills were awarded than the number of aircraft actually shot down.  If you want "realistic" kills then you get to claim almost everything you shot at and you get credit for most of them even if they land safely.

[TWC_Ace]

Every time I land in my base, damaged, I get that  WT* stupid expression on my face, when facing with "kill" message. This makes no sense not to mention it is completely wrong regarding crediting pilots in RL.

Edited September 17, 2015 by blackram

[SharpeXB]

If the aircraft is disabled it's a kill. Comparing to WW2 kills is utterly ridiculous, as far more kills were awarded than the number of aircraft actually shot down. If you want "realistic" kills then you get to claim almost everything you shot at and you get credit for most of them even if they land safely.

Right. There's two different scores.

 

A. Aircraft actually damaged and destroyed as counted by a computer. Or actually destroyed and damaged in the real war.

 

B. Aircraft claimed as victories in a real war subject to all the errors of perception and uncertainty. In real air battles pilots claimed twice the number of planes that were actually destroyed as in the Battle of Britain.

 

A computer game with its omnipotent score keeping is always going to use the first criteria A

Especially in MP

 

Now a SP career mode game could try and add a fog of war kill claim system which might be fun. But MP is like an online sport where the scoring needs to be fair and not subjective.

Edited September 17, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SYN_Haashashin]

if you did it behind enemy lines, you were captured. That could be implemented within that airfield radius. Maybe it comes down to the mission editor?

This is the way RoF do it, if the mission builder used the influence area MCU. If you are flying Entente and land inside Germans influence area and you hit finish fly, it will count you as captured and you lose all you kill streak. That's is for SP and MP in RoF, don't know if it's implemented on BoS.

 

Aout how the kills are counted..well RoF has/had infinite discussion about it...I can't even remember how many times I crash landed and survive but the server count me as dead and give a kill to someone!! Also the player that put the last bullet on the enemy before its shot down, doesn't matter if you spend all your ammo on the same guy, will score the kill.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Actually I remember that too. And if you did it behind enemy lines, you were captured. That could be implemented within that airfield radius. Maybe it comes down to the mission editor?

Actually there was a "roll of the dice" on being captured. You had a small chance to make it back to your own lines and avoiding capture.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Its not disabled that we're talking about, its possibly just one bullet through a wing or the canopy; superficial damage.

I land with rounds through my aircraft all the time, sometimes significant numbers of rounds, and don't usually end up a kill unless my engine stops or I break some significant portions off on the landing (wing, both gear, empennage, etc). I'm guessing there are some hard requirements (engine still running) and also a percentage of damage required for you to end up a kill but I'm not sure.

[BraveSirRobin]

Its not disabled that we're talking about, its possibly just one bullet through a wing or the canopy; superficial damage.

 

It's certainly disabled when you have butchered the landing and there are aircraft parts all over the runway.  If you don't like people getting kills they don't deserve you can spend more time practicing landing your aircraft.

[Jizzo]

We should all go super realism, as soon as we die in mp we sould delete the game, cause' we are dead and can't fly another time.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I know we are talking about a flight sim here but if you get your aircraft back to your home base but "pork" the landing and survive how is that an aerial victory to another player?

[BraveSirRobin]

Terribly sorry, I didn't realise it was you I was attempting to have discussion with, I shall cease immediately.

 

Your gifting kills to enemy pilots who don't deserve them really doesn't have anything to do with me.

[BraveSirRobin]

I know we are talking about a flight sim here but if you get your aircraft back to your home base but "pork" the landing and survive how is that an aerial victory to another player?

 

It's a victory to the enemy because it's completely impossible for the programmer to figure out whether you crashed because of the damage or because of a poor landing.  In either case it's still a far better system than the "realistic" methods used to hand out countless phony kills during the actual war. 

I can certainly see the logic of awarding a kill if damage from shots causes a crash. I'm not against this.It is just the case of a crap landing, or dodging a cross-runway take-off nutter that just seems a little 'giving', and should be labeled ' crash landing' instead.

 

You should let the programmers know how to recognize a situation like that.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

It's a victory to the enemy because it's completely impossible for the programmer to figure out whether you crashed because of the damage or because of a poor landing.  In either case it's still a far better system than the "realistic" methods used to hand out countless phony kills during the actual war. 

 

You should let the programmers know how to recognize a situation like that.

 

I see why you use that name now....you feel like you have to ride to the rescue of developers everywhere....fear not Brave Sir Robin, we're merely having a discussion and not an attack in sight

[BraveSirRobin]

I see why you use that name now....you feel like you have to ride to the rescue of developers everywhere...

 

Brave Sir Robin didn't ride to the rescue of anyone.  I use this name because I like to fly the Spad in RoF.  And bravely running away is what flying the Spad is all about.  

 

In any case, I'll be very interested to see the solution you provide for the developers.  I'm sure it won't have any flaws that I can spend the next few years picking apart.

[Mikey]

In any case, I'll be very interested to see the solution you provide for the developers.  I'm sure it won't have any flaws that I can spend the next few years picking apart.

 that's like asking a a random person how to build a rocket to the moon.  most here are players, not snarky developers.

[BraveSirRobin]

 that's like asking a a random person how to build a rocket to the moon.  most here are players, not snarky developers.

 

Then maybe the "players" who have no idea what they're talking about should try to show a little more deference to the "snarky" developers who are actually doing the work.

 that's like asking a a random person how to build a rocket to the moon.  

 

By the way, it's not asking a random person, it's asking a person who is telling the scientists that they should build a better rocket.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Stop talking out of your backside Robin, your non-contributions on this forum are like a broken record.

 

People can talk about aspects of the game, positive and negative as much as they want. We're interested in having a great sim and sometimes that means talking about things that might need tweaking. No one here is screaming blue murder and you don't get to decide what we can or cannot talk about.

 

As for 'knowing what we're talking about' if you really were a programmer you would realise that the end user's opinion is important and certainly more important than your ego...or do you talk to your customers like that (assuming you even have a job)?

 

And by the way your arguments are really poor, not quite as intelligent as you like to think they sound

[BraveSirRobin]

As for 'knowing what we're talking about' if you really were a programmer you would realise that the end user's opinion is important and certainly more important than your ego...or do you talk to your customers like that (assuming you even have a job)?

 

The user's opinion is completely irrelevant if the thing that they want is not possible.  If you want to keep complaining about something that can't be done the way you want, go right ahead.  That seems to be a staple of flight sim forums.

 

And, yes, we tell our customers all the time when something that they want is not possible.  

[VBF-12_Snake9]

In 46 I really enjoyed deadsticking a landing at home airfeild to deprive a kill. It was exciting. I flew rof mp a little, and I was amazed at how easy kills were giving out. It was like watching Oprah, you get a kill, you get a kill, you get a kill. Everyone gets a kill.

I shot a fuel leak one time in my buddies se5. Slow leak. Anyway my buddy landed at home airfeild, turned off his engine, and sat around talking on ts. About 10 minutes after his landing the fuel line ran dry and Snake shot down so and so. We both laughed and said how stupid is that. In my opinion 46 handled kills much better.

Edited September 17, 2015 by 12.OIAE_Snake9

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

OK, I'll give you that one is a little weak. You don't have to stay in the game to BS on TEAMSPEAK though

[SCG_Neun]

Looks like the best way to do it is just keep a squadron tally based on the actual combat results....and let the game continue this current system of so called kills.....I don't know anything about programming .....but how does the damage modeling award a pilot injury....? Can the wing receive damage and the pilot be injured inflight...or is there a more sophisticated system in place scoring direct cockpit hits? If so..can induced damage on a muffed landing which also damages the cockpit be interfaced in deciding crash landing "kills"? Someone has also mentioned a percentage of damage to the aircraft as a factor as well....

 

Perhaps it's just a wish list...but I can totally understand the suggestion that the current scoring system be revisited....

[BraveSirRobin]

Sitting in an aircraft for 10 minutes BSing on comms while it is leaking fuel does not sound like realistic behavior.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Lol. Wouldn't take my laughing smiley face. But here's me laughing. Lol.

Edited September 17, 2015 by 12.OIAE_Snake9

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The user's opinion is completely irrelevant if the thing that they want is not possible.  If you want to keep complaining about something that can't be done the way you want, go right ahead.  That seems to be a staple of flight sim forums.

 

And, yes, we tell our customers all the time when something that they want is not possible.  

I bet your sales guys don't and it creates tons of headaches for the engineers. "Oh, yeah, we can totally do that! *whispered* We can do that can't we?"

 

My wife's in tech on the engineering side

[SKG51_robtek]

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

When I flew with my sqad in IL2-1946 (ZG15) we had a internal score system where a squad mate had to testify your kills or they wouldn't count.

That really improves coordinated flying as a team.

[BraveSirRobin]

I bet your sales guys don't and it creates tons of headaches for the engineers. "Oh, yeah, we can totally do that! *whispered* We can do that can't we?"

 

My wife's in tech on the engineering side

 

We're actually pretty good about not promising vaporware.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Looks like the best way to do it is just keep a squadron tally based on the actual combat results....and let the game continue this current system of so called kills...

 

-snip-

 

This. Any solid historical/semi-historical squadron should have some system in place for counting personal (Luftwaffe/Allies) or shared (Allies) victories.

[SharpeXB]

It's a simple calculation. Bullets hit your plane. Your plane hits the ground and breaks. Whoever fired the bullets therefore shot you down. The computer can't possibly figure why you hit the ground or why you broke your plane. All that matters is you did.

There's no way to figure why. Were you trying to land and failed? There's no way to know. And as far as the omnipotent impartial scoring is considered, your plane is still broken regardless of why. And regardless of how long you were flying. Somebody still shot you. So you're shot down.

Edited September 18, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

The real question we need to ask is:

If a plane crashes in the forest and nobody sees it. Did it really crash?

 

The computers answer to that question is; "42"

[6./ZG26_Emil]

The real question we need to ask is:

If a plane crashes in the forest and nobody sees it. Did it really crash?

 

The computers answer to that question is; "42"

 

I think 42 is probably the answer to most things and if not it should be :D

 

I don't know any other sim that tells you that you are killed before you hit the ground other than ROF. For me that is a bit of an immersion breaker and something I noticed very early on when I started playing. I understand why some people don't mind especially of the DF servers where there is a cue of 20 other 109s ready to steal your kill but it's a bit sad if that is the reason they put that in there because of that.

 

I'd prefer the kill not to be granted until the aircraft has hit the ground, it would be nice if there was a reason to try and glide that last few miles back to base and make a tough landing instead if just bailing out  or struggling back with a severely damaged engine. As it stands I think you would just be better off hitting the silk....if your one of those rare people who care about kill getting 'killed'.

 

Shame this thread got trashed by the usual suspects though, since when are we not allowed to have a discussion about game mechanics? It's not a whine or moan thread or slating the developers...heck it's not even asking for a response simple seeing what other people think.

[BraveSirRobin]

 simple seeing what other people think.

 

That is exactly what I was doing.  Telling you what I thought.

[Bearcat]

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 disagree... I think 46 dkid it very well.. Granted there is a lot that 46 did well that BoS does... differently .. but it is still doable.

 

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.

 

Again.. I disagree... if you crash and total the plane.. OK... but if you just land and bend your prop or break your gear.. or even loose a wing.. that should not count as a kill. I cant tell you how many times I landed all shot up broken gear skidding off the runway.. plane smoking.. but I was able to get out and run away.. in real life that plane would have been repaired depending on the damage...

 

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

 

Damage alone should not give a kill. Surely there is some way to determine a particular percentage point of damage.. I have had incidents where I had my rudder disabled.. or engine gone and I muffed the landing and the plane blew up.. that is a kill... Other times I had the exact same damage.. and I was able to get the plane down in a few pieces... no kill.. That is how it should be.

 

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

 

I agree...

 

The user's opinion is completely irrelevant if the thing that they want is not possible.  If you want to keep complaining about something that can't be done the way you want, go right ahead.  That seems to be a staple of flight sim forums.

 

And, yes, we tell our customers all the time when something that they want is not possible.  

 

Who says it is not possible though..? Just because it is not done does not mean it is not possible.

 

In 46 I really enjoyed deadsticking a landing at home airfeild to deprive a kill. It was exciting. I flew rof mp a little, and I was amazed at how easy kills were giving out. It was like watching Oprah, you get a kill, you get a kill, you get a kill. Everyone gets a kill.

I shot a fuel leak one time in my buddies se5. Slow leak. Anyway my buddy landed at home airfeild, turned off his engine, and sat around talking on ts. About 10 minutes after his landing the fuel line ran dry and Snake shot down so and so. We both laughed and said how stupid is that. In my opinion 46 handled kills much better.

 

Much much better... and now it is even better than it was back in the day. I see no reason why this cannot at least be looked at... except for the fact that at the moment they have other priorities.. but I will not be surprised if this is addressed  eventually.

[BraveSirRobin]

Damage alone should not give a kill. Surely there is some way to determine a particular percentage point of damage..

 

Sure, they track the level of damage.  Which random damage level is the different between a crash and a kill?  That is the part that is impossible to know.  And someone is going to be whining no matter what the devs decide to do.

 

And why should that matter to the person who managed to survive getting shot up?  I used to be bothered by people who got kills that I didn't think they deserved.  Now I don't care.  As long as I survive, who gives a crap if someone else gets a kill.  I still try to avoid giving away kills, but I think it reflects more on me when I butcher a landing and give someone a kill.  I should have done better.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Is there no way to create a "zone" around a friendly airfield linked with a percentage of damage linked from purely ammunition? If you get back alive to your airfield then it's not a aerial victory etc?

 

 

 

And someone is going to be whining no matter what the devs decide to do.

 

I don't think many people are moaning on here TBH. A discussion isn't necessarily moaning is it? It is also not about attacking the Dev's the sim or computer programmers the world over for that matter. I personally think if an individual doesn't particularly care for the subject of a topic and decides to adopt what appears to be an acerbic attitude, then general discussion tends to cease in favour of I'm right and you are wrong.

 

As the OP I'm not demanding anything from the Dev's its on a wish list but I hope one day people cleverer than me will be able to develop a system that doesn't break immersion and is a little more indicative of how aerial victories were recorded.