Jump to content

Should "destroyed" factors be reconsidered?


Recommended Posts

Posted

Specifically with regard to TAW and more generally for other MP servers where losing your aircraft is meaningful.

 

Currently there are some very specific logical gates that separate your aircraft from being counted as "100% in service" and "emergency landing" such as:

 

- Prop hits

- Control rods loss

- others that I do not recall right now.

 

 

Meantime other kind of "partial" damage that would like put their aircraft into a workshop for a few days at least is considered as "100% in service":

 

- Severe damage to surfaces / structure

- Engine damage (banging but running)

 

In my mind damaged engine is easily the highest factor to take the aircraft out of service, as it is one of the longer repairs and more expensive parts of the aircraft. While control rod loss / hit prop is a fairly (in comparison) quick replacement.

 

This especially gets frustrating when you manage to get home by using flaps for the elevator, pull off the most beautiful landing only to find out that you were "destroyed" 20 minutes ago and the entire struggle to get home was a waste of time.

 

I'm afraid I don't have a black-and-white suggestion how to differentiate these states, but would like to start a discussion on this topic as I feel it can be made better.

  • Upvote 8
Posted

stop looking at the stats.
focus on the achievement.

Zero coding needed.
It´s all in your mind anyway, so kill your ego.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

I really wish that the damage state of components was logged for this exact reason. It would give some cool options to servers. Not just in reporting like you are saying, but actual game play.

 

Example:

Players reuse their aircraft for sorties. Poor engine management would eventually result in engine failure. Players could put an aircraft in for maintenance or choose to leave the aircraft in service after combat damage. Would be interesting to decide to skip repairs cause you didn't think it was bad just to find out the elevator control rod was at 20% and your high G turn just caused it to snap.

 

This would also allow us to get rid of the instant engine damage from using emergency power past x minutes.

Posted

 the entire struggle to get home was a waste of time.

 

 

How was it a waste of time if it didn't count against you?

 

This game needs..

 

  •  Kill
  • Probable
  • Shared
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

 

How was it a waste of time if it didn't count against you?

 

This game needs..

 

  •  Kill
  • Probable
  • Shared

 

 

 

Waste of time that I still lost the aircraft (so it counted against me) and the enemy got the kill (counter for him).

 

 

 

 

I really wish that the damage state of components was logged for this exact reason. It would give some cool options to servers. Not just in reporting like you are saying, but actual game play.

 

Example:

Players reuse their aircraft for sorties. Poor engine management would eventually result in engine failure. Players could put an aircraft in for maintenance or choose to leave the aircraft in service after combat damage. Would be interesting to decide to skip repairs cause you didn't think it was bad just to find out the elevator control rod was at 20% and your high G turn just caused it to snap.

 

This would also allow us to get rid of the instant engine damage from using emergency power past x minutes.

 

 

That would be incredible to have. I'd add to that the ability of the mission to specify the engine "wear" and airframe "wear" at the mission start. So we could simulate battered and overused aircraft.

 

Post your suggestion to dev assist-suggestions! I don't think devs will implement it, but its worth a shot for sure.

Edited by JaffaCake
Posted (edited)

A good example for me was an FNBF event several months back where I was in a heated dogfight and was damaged but the plane was flyable so I made my escape back to home base.  A normal approach and touch down but somehow one of my blades touched the ground and the engine stopped without the plane flipping over, sliding off the runway, in other words nothing dramatic.  BUT, on the game message system stated Pilot Hund was destroyed by by pilot so-n-so!?!?!  What would have been the case if I'd shut the motor off just before touchdown and the same thing had occurred, would the same system message have been generated.  This is where I think the game scoring does need a little tweaking.

 

Cheers,

 

Der Hund

Edited by II./JG77_Hund
Posted

What I would like to see is if one person gets an 'assist' then the other person or persons also get an assist and not a full kill. Assists should perhaps be easier to achieve also. ( i'm not really sure what the basis for them is )

 

You know it makes sense.

 

It would take away the somewhat unrealistic kill-stealing aspect of the game to a large degree.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

IMHO a better way could be scoring based on the damage inflicted. You would earn a fractional "kill" - basically a claim of probability of the target not returning to the base, like 0.2, 0.3, 0.5 and so on. It wouldn't be perfectly accurate - as no claims were - however it would promote more team-oriented play-style. The target fixation and kill-stealing would stop be a thing for once. You would always earn something if you landed a hit, and you could get an impressive score playing a supporting role.

No601_Swallow
Posted

Some time ago, I requested that the devs stop flagging an aircraft as "dead" once it's run out of fuel - since I love the edge-of-your-seat suspense of dead-stick landing, and was trying to build a mission with this in. Black Six, I think, replied, saying that the devs are planning to change how the game decides an aircraft is dead. So... fingers crossed for 3.001!  :cool:

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Some time ago, I requested that the devs stop flagging an aircraft as "dead" once it's run out of fuel - since I love the edge-of-your-seat suspense of dead-stick landing, and was trying to build a mission with this in. Black Six, I think, replied, saying that the devs are planning to change how the game decides an aircraft is dead. So... fingers crossed for 3.001!  :cool:

 

That would definitely be nice!

[APAF]VR_Spartan85
Posted

I feel a lot of these ideas sound like they’ll be a major part of the new campaign. Hopefully...

Posted

One of the things that really bothers me, even offline, is the message that I have been "killed", when in fact my aircraft is still flying, controllable and under power, more or less.  I will often land safely on my side of he lines, and in reality would have been flying with my unit the next day in all likelihood. 

Posted

I really wish that the damage state of components was logged for this exact reason. It would give some cool options to servers. Not just in reporting like you are saying, but actual game play.

 

Example:

Players reuse their aircraft for sorties. Poor engine management would eventually result in engine failure. Players could put an aircraft in for maintenance or choose to leave the aircraft in service after combat damage. Would be interesting to decide to skip repairs cause you didn't think it was bad just to find out the elevator control rod was at 20% and your high G turn just caused it to snap.

 

 

I don't really need to worry about this. My recent history shows that its an extremely rare occurrence that I manage to bring one of my birds home ;) I suppose its possible that a truck is sent to recover some of my ditched birds though lol

Posted

 

 

Why play a game? Just sit in a dark room and think really hard about flying. It's all in your mind! While this line of thought has merit it doesn't serve much purpose when having a practical discussion about game mechanics.

 

As you said "this line of thought has merit".....and this forum isn't a competition either but it does sound like you wanted to have a go at someone for no real reason at all. Get happy dude.

Posted

That wasn't the tone I was typing in at all, but I guess it was the tone you were reading in! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure why you are apologizing. I took your response as an optimistic vote for improvement. I personally ignored the guy you had made the initial response to because I was rolling my eyes too hard to see the keyboard.

Posted

 

 

That wasn't the tone I was typing in at all

 

fair enough :good: :good:

  • Upvote 1
Posted

The Ju 52 is the best example of why that mindset ('just ignore the points and imagine it') doesn't really work.

Plenty of people have the Ju 52 and I've seen loads of posts talking about how much people enjoy flying it, but there are no points and no rewards available for anything you do with it at all, which disincentives people from flying it even in servers or missions where it is allowed.

 

It's the same way that seeing a message saying you've been destroyed and someone has been credited with the kill puts you off from wanting to fight to get home and land.

 

To combine the two, trying to nurse a damaged Ju 52 back to base is a fun challenge in itself.

Posted (edited)

And another case of a fallen off vertical stabiliser leading to my aircraft being counted as destroyed.

 

Nevermind the 2 kills after the event and safe landing afterwards.... Didn't need that stabiliser anyway (just added drag to the plane!.... is that even simulated? /s)

Edited by JaffaCake
Posted

Yeah, it's rather odd and I do think this dynamic needs to be revisited and looked at again by the devs. I've failed missions despite making it back to base and performing a nice deadstick landing and completed missions despite dying after I had passed the "exit point".

 

Maybe things will make a bit more sense with the new dynamic campaign? Put simply, if I make it back behind friendly lines alive after completing the objectives, the mission should be a success even in the case of bailout or bellylanding. The campaign then progresses accordingly based on my health (or lack thereof). If I'm injured, convalescence should be factored depending on severity. If I crash land or bailout behind enemy lines, then the proximity to the front should factor on whether I'm captured or escape, with some level of chance factored in. It's been many years but I'm pretty sure the dynamic campaign introduced in Forgotten Battles handled things in just this way.

 

I'm going off on a tangent but regardless, I shouldn't count as a "kill" for the enemy (or "destroyed") until my plane contacts the ground "violently", I force land outside the vicinity of a friendly airfield, I bailout or am literally killed (either in the cockpit or from bad bailout). Unless I'm killed, none of that should affect mission success if it occurs behind friendly lines and the mission objectives were completed.

Posted

I'm going off on a tangent but regardless, I shouldn't count as a "kill" for the enemy (or "destroyed") until my plane contacts the ground "violently", I force land outside the vicinity of a friendly airfield, I bailout or am literally killed (either in the cockpit or from bad bailout). Unless I'm killed, none of that should affect mission success if it occurs behind friendly lines and the mission objectives were completed.

Yes. This is exactly the way it should be.
[APAF]VR_Spartan85
Posted (edited)

Well, perhaps instant “mission complete” should be delayed until recon has been conducted of target area :)

 

Ya, two or three missions later you will find out if you need to run the mission again and finish off targets that had been missed or repaired ..

 

If you still have your life it shouldn’t be a fail, unless of course the mission is just to make it back with the aircraft... which mostly all missions are

 

This is in reference to single player,,

Edited by spartan85
Posted

He has point at least for some of the MP missions where planes are limited. If I bring a damaged bird home and strike a prop on the emergency landing, should that air frame be counted as lost. While I do agree this could be an edge case, I do know I have been on WoL and seen both teams go 20 planes remaining at the same time. A few emergency landings could make the difference.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...