Is "Instant-Kill" a necessary element of Multiplayer?

[HunDread]

Hopefully instant-kills are calculated precisely by the game and there is no element of luck from that perspective. Meaning that if a bullet is shot precisely towards the pilot head in a way that there is nothing preventing it reaching the head it is an instant kill, and there is no percentage calculation like if it's close enough it may (or may not) be a head-shot. Hopefully this precise calculation is possible to be performed in multiplayer with people all over the world.

 

With that hoped and said as a baseline, I still think instant kill is an element of luck than anything else in multiplayer. People cannot aim for the head in a dogfight, we aim for the plane and from that point it's a luck vs bad luck situation. With that said, it's just an annoying element rather than anything useful. 

 

Most annoying situations:

 - Dancing with the opponent for minutes when one player pulls the nose on the other for a lucky half second shot .... and - instakill

 - Rear gunner AI instakill

 - AI instakill of any type in Multiplayer for that matter

 - Instakill on high altitude when you have to watch your plane slowly fall to the ground and explode to hell before you can exit the sortie. As if it was not enough that you were instakilled again

 

I would at least stop all kinds of AI instakills on multiplayer. That doesn't make sense to me. Who decides where the bullet is going in that case? It must be kind of a luck calculation of the game. Counter-opinion might be that in this case we could stop all kind of AI damage in multiplayer but I mean I don't mind if AI is shooting me down but dear BOTs, just give me a chance to forfeit and limp back home if your are too many and too strong. If I cannot make it home that's fine, but at least I had some hope. If I continue the attack then shoot my plane to pieces and that's all.

 

I would also tie the instakill possibility to the plane damage. Only after certain amount of plane damage would instakill be possible.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I’ve got bad news for you.  Unlucky instakills is pretty much how war goes.  You can do everything right and still die.  So the game is extremely realistic in this regard.  

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well I can aim for head in ww1 dogfight.

Head has small hit box but is hundreds times  larger than a bullet projectile is. Actually hit place Is based on vector math within 3d space so no luck there. You might think you are aiming for pilot  but it's just  human perception , with large margine for error but you should  have chance to score that vital spot  like you would in real life.

Edited March 3, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Head shot not necessary for "Instant-Kill".  A 20 or 30mm hit to the body will ruin your day.  No problem with these kills in game.

 

Where I see a problem is the number of times one can survive a horrible crash landing.  Should be more deaths in these situations.

[Gambit21]

49 minutes ago, HunDread said:

I would also tie the instakill possibility to the plane damage. Only after certain amount of plane damage would instakill be possible.

 

 

I’ll bet real life pilots would love that system.

 

Hey I have a better idea for you - how about aircraft damage only possible after a certain amount of pilot head damage?!

[RedKestrel]

23 minutes ago, HunDread said:

Hopefully instant-kills are calculated precisely by the game and there is no element of luck from that perspective. Meaning that if a bullet is shot precisely towards the pilot head in a way that there is nothing preventing it reaching the head it is an instant kill, and there is no percentage calculation like if it's close enough it may (or may not) be a head-shot. Hopefully this precise calculation is possible to be performed in multiplayer with people all over the world.

 

With that hoped and said as a baseline, I still think instant kill is an element of luck than anything else in multiplayer. People cannot aim for the head in a dogfight, we aim for the plane and from that point it's a luck vs bad luck situation. With that said, it's just an annoying element rather than anything useful. 

 

Most annoying situations:

 - Dancing with the opponent for minutes when one player pulls the nose on the other for a lucky half second shot .... and - instakill

 - Rear gunner AI instakill

 - AI instakill of any type in Multiplayer for that matter

 - Instakill on high altitude when you have to watch your plane slowly fall to the ground and explode to hell before you can exit the sortie. As if it was not enough that you were instakilled again

 

I would at least stop all kinds of AI instakills on multiplayer. That doesn't make sense to me. Who decides where the bullet is going in that case? It must be kind of a luck calculation of the game. Counter-opinion might be that in this case we could stop all kind of AI damage in multiplayer but I mean I don't mind if AI is shooting me down but dear BOTs, just give me a chance to forfeit and limp back home if your are too many and too strong. If I cannot make it home that's fine, but at least I had some hope. If I continue the attack then shoot my plane to pieces and that's all.

 

I would also tie the instakill possibility to the plane damage. Only after certain amount of plane damage would instakill be possible.

 

 

As someone who gets instakilled quite often, I have to do a hard disagree on pretty much all of this, especially tying pilot kills to overall plane damage. It makes no sense to give the player extra 'hit points' that can be chipped away at by shooting up his wings or his tail, and only then going for a headshot. I generally hate the phrase 'arcade' bandied around here but that is a very arcade-like solution. It's like a boss fight in a game where you have to shoot off his armor to expose the glowing heart thing.

The 'lucky half second shot' is a snap shot and in a lot of fighting scenarios the goal is to obtain one. Making a shot like that is an element of skill and luck, and hitting the pilot is a definite possibility - in fact hitting the pilot is why taking a chance on a snap shot is worth while, since you're likely to hit the most vulnerable part of the plane. It makes no sense to limit those shots artificially. If I fire a  bullet through the canopy of an enemy plane and hit the pilot with one 12.7mm round, its completely realistic to expect that that pilot is immediately incapacitated or killed. Even a hit on an arm or a leg is going to produce shock and a frankly horrific wound that would likely cause immense shock and quick death through blood loss. There really is nowhere on the human body where a hit from a large-calibre gun would produce a high chance of survival.

Fighter pilots are taught to deny enemy fighters snap shot opportunities and to attack in such a way as to not expose themselves to them, for the exact reason that the enemy only needs to hit you once to ruin your day. That is the nature of air combat - you are up in the air, fully exposed, with only thin aluminum aircraft skin and a few strategically position steel plates between you and the enemy bullets.

As far as the luck thing goes...that's combat. You can be the baddest MFer on the planet and some farmer kid with a Mosin-Nagant can put a  shot through your head at 200 yards when you look out of your tank. The whole point of the weapons on the plane is to put enough lead in the air to kill the other guy in some way, none of them are intended to be sniper weapons. It would be silly to insist that a cloud of 12.7mm bullets not hit the pilot in a critical way simply because the shooter was not specifically aiming for the pilot. AFAIK the game tracks every bullet and where it hits, including on the pilot. So if someone shoots at me and one of the bullets passes through my pilot I expect to die. Just because the guy can't pick my head out on his monitor doesn't mean he didn't get a good hit.


 

[Lord_Strange]

This is a simulation of aerial combat and an important part of that is accurate pilot physiology. Death from a bullet to the head is a pretty key part of human physiology (okay people have survived head-shots in the past but let's not dive that deep).

[GarandM1]

Frustrating though it may be to get sniped, I have never had an issue with it. You notice happen more on planes where the pilot has less protection and it is very easy to aim directly for the pilot in FC aircraft where the hitbox is spot on. It can be annoying to be instantly deleted, but you can't really make a convincing argument that the game doesn't handle it accurately. 

 

The AI gunners on certain aircraft can be way too good (cough Pe-2 cough) in my opinion, but that is a separate issue. 

[69th_Bazzer]

Pilot kills are modelled very well in my opinion. Sure there is an element of luck, but there's also a strong element of skill. Some pilots get far more of them than the rest of us.

 

AI can be frustrating. There's obviously copious complaining about the pe-2 gunners, and 110 rear gunners routinely shoot me right in the face too. I do think there needs to be a short delay in their ability to aim when you enter their cone of fire from an angle they couldn't see you coming (e.g. from below). However, this is an AI aimbot issue, not an instant pilot kill issue.

[Guest deleted@134347]

PK is not an issue at least for me, it's instant, done deal, etc..

 

What I hate the most is the knock outs from the large caliber cannons that black out your screen for 60 or so seconds.  Those should either be instant kills or 1-3 seconds blackout with a following redout...

[40plus]

This is a simulator, not a multiplayer arcade where things like "balance" and "fair" come into play.

 

Bullet in brain = dead. Regardless of how it got there.

Edited March 3, 2020 by pfrances

[RedKestrel]

 

52 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I’ll bet real life pilots would love that system.

 

Hey I have a better idea for you - how about aircraft damage only possible after a certain amount of pilot head damage?!

Update the pilot damage model to account for my brain melting from spending too much time on the forums!

[Stoopy]

Even James Bond has to deal with instakills...

 

 

[RedKestrel]

17 minutes ago, Count_de_Money said:

PK is not an issue at least for me, it's instant, done deal, etc..

 

What I hate the most is the knock outs from the large caliber cannons that black out your screen for 60 or so seconds.  Those should either be instant kills or 1-3 seconds blackout with a following redout...

Yes the knock outs are just frustrating. I would rather it results in death or slow bleed out, its more frustrating just sitting there waiting to wake up than it is if I knew I was already dead. Most of the time when that happens you're basically toast anyway.

[Guest deleted@134347]

3 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Yes the knock outs are just frustrating. I would rather it results in death or slow bleed out, its more frustrating just sitting there waiting to wake up than it is if I knew I was already dead. Most of the time when that happens you're basically toast anyway.

 

I attributed it to the dev accidentally introducing the 'vegetative' state of the mind in the course of developing the pilot's physiology.. ... ?

[cardboard_killer]

One thing's certain--we need to see more blood and brains after a pilot snipe. Just slumping over is the candy land version--we need screens that turn crimson and grey with brain material

and don't forget seats that are brown

[=621=Samikatz]

I survive hits fairly often in the early war aircraft, I've even taken hits, turned around, and shot down the bandit who damaged me. The BoBP matchups are a lot more deadly but every plane is carrying way more guns so like, it's to be expected

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

From my experience, insta-kills aren't quite as prevalent on the WW1 side in this game.

 

Give Flying Circus a shot and see if it suits you better.

Edited March 3, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[BlitzPig_EL]

One would think they should be in FC.

The pilot has no armor, and is essentially hanging out in the breeze.

Can't tell you how many times I have came up under an enemy aircraft and just hammered the bottom of the cockpit area, and the pilot just carries on without so much as a scratch.

 

Maddening.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

They are in FC;  But you're not being hit with 20mm.

 

You can be insta-killed, but it takes an actual headshot.  On the WW2 side, basically anything .50 cal or up into your cockpit is instakill.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

One would think they should be in FC.

The pilot has no armor, and is essentially hanging out in the breeze.

Can't tell you how many times I have came up under an enemy aircraft and just hammered the bottom of the cockpit area, and the pilot just carries on without so much as a scratch.

 

Maddening.

 

Yes, this seemed to be quite improved in FC compared to RoF... with more ability to hit crew (and even to hit pilots of two-seaters - which are in between the rear gunner and engine hit-boxes). However, I haven't had much luck using the Lewis to shoot at two-seaters from below... that just might be me though.

 

I remember I had a lot of effort shooting at a Ju-52 in an I-16 with four ShKAS (7.62mm guns) just not seeming to penetrate far enough through the fuselauge to hit something important... so I flew under it and climbed vertically and shot through the cockpit floor... and the Ju-52 went down! It was a testament to how far damage modelling has come.

[MasserME262]

I don't want a game with no annoying situations. I want a game that simulates the real flying and combat'ing. And this sim does it. Luckily, devs won't be changing that anytime soon.

[HunDread]

I accept RedKestrel's argument on snaphots so let's leave human instant kills out of the discussion and focus on AI instakills.

 

I disagree with the common argument here that this is a war sim so it should simulate that random AI instant kill on multiplayer. 

 

1. If the devs just silently took this away, no one would actually notice. Maybe a few weeks or months later after people talking to each other here or on teamspeak, discord etc, and creating polls it would come out. But this means that it would not take away any pleasure from gameplay only an annoyance.

 

2. It wouldn't make the game arcade. If anything, letting the computer calculate your chances in a multiplayer environment makes it arcade. Probably I think differently on this as I am coming from simracing. As a comparison, if IRacing had random mechanical failures simulated (they don't), exactly that is what would make it arcade.

 

3. Many people play multiplayer to survive for as long as possible. Ending these with a randomly calculated AI instant kill is just not fair. I know I know "this is war which is not fair". But in that case, please only those comment on this last part who have never complained in any way about one team outnumbering the other in multiplayer. I would honestly appreciate that. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by HunDread

[haltux]

Actually I think pilots are way too resistant to wounds. I don't think that pilots, humans or or AI, should be able to continue fighting when they got hit by a bullet, whatever the bullet is, wherever they got shot (scratches being ignored). Practically I don't think anyone can continue flying high G manoeuvres when shot, and if they do they should pass out.

 

When shot, controls should loose most of their responsiveness, things should get worst with time, and the only goal of the pilot should be to come back home and land alive.

 

So my opinion is the exact opposite of yours. Wounds most probably happen at a realistic rate, but their effects are undermodelized.

 

Where I agree with you is that AI gunner are far too accurate, sometimes this is really ridiculous, they make impossible shots. Not physically impossible of course, but their accuracy is based on a targetting algorithm that a human brain cannot possibly run.

 

In single player mode attacking an "average" Stuka is way more risky than attacking an "ace" Bf109. I don't think that it is historically accurate.

 

This is a known issue and dev apparently do not want to change that, and anyway I am sure many die hard IL2 players disagree with me, so I just accepted it.

[Jade_Monkey]

16 hours ago, Count_de_Money said:

PK is not an issue at least for me, it's instant, done deal, etc..

 

What I hate the most is the knock outs from the large caliber cannons that black out your screen for 60 or so seconds.  Those should either be instant kills or 1-3 seconds blackout with a following redout...

 

Agree 100%.

 

I would suggest putting a different effect such as temporary blurred vision and a tinnitus like buzz to simulate the shock.

[cardboard_killer]

Imagine Subaru Sakai flying the four hundred miles back to Rabaul from Guadalcanal, one eye shot out, then spending six (?) months to recover.

[kendo]

1 hour ago, HunDread said:

I accept RedKestrel's argument on snaphots so let's leave human instant kills out of the discussion and focus on AI instakills.

 

I disagree with the common argument here that this is a war sim so it should simulate that random AI instant kill on multiplayer. 

 

1. If the devs just silently took this away, no one would actually notice. Maybe a few weeks or months later after people talking to each other here or on teamspeak, discord etc, and creating polls it would come out. But this means that it would not take away any pleasure from gameplay only an annoyance.

 

2. It wouldn't make the game arcade. If anything, letting the computer calculate your chances in a multiplayer environment makes it arcade. Probably I think differently on this as I am coming from simracing. As a comparison, if IRacing had random mechanical failures simulated (they don't), exactly that is what would make it arcade.

 

3. Many people play multiplayer to survive for as long as possible. Ending these with a randomly calculated AI instant kill is just not fair. I know I know "this is war which is not fair". But in that case, please only those comment on this last part who have never complained in any way about one team outnumbering the other in multiplayer. I would honestly appreciate that. 

 

I just don't agree with your arguments. What you are suggesting would make the sim less realistic, and it would indeed become more 'arcade'. The only way out if you do not want AI to be capable of making instant player kills is to remove all AI completely - not just 'magically' discount those unwelcome occasions when they shoot and kill you.

 

Really...think about what you are asking for - you want AI flying around capable of damaging your aircraft ( but only in an 'entertaining' way that allows you to continue to fly)  while calculating which AI bullets are heading towards a fatal kill shot and removing them from the game!!!  

 

War is indeed hell. We should be thankful that when we are 'killed' online we only have to be patient for 5 minutes and reconnect. If that is too much of a stretch for you then I don't know what to say. 

[HunDread]

56 minutes ago, kendo said:

you want AI flying around capable of damaging your aircraft

 

I mean multiplayer where no AI planes should be flying around.

 

58 minutes ago, kendo said:

War is indeed hell. We should be thankful that when we are 'killed' online we only have to be patient for 5 minutes and reconnect. If that is too much of a stretch for you then I don't know what to say.

 

This can work the other way too. If it's just that then why it's adding so much to gameplay? I mean it's hard to tell where immersion begins and ends. For me it's more an immersion killer that the computer happened to shoot me down in multiplayer then my eyes without a body is sticked to a random point in the sky where I watch my plane go down and explode.

 

 

Also, people have been beating each other up for years over rear gun accuracy. Probably just not letting them one-shot the pilot head would have made those (often quite disgusting) debates less severe. 

 

And again: if this was done behind the curtain, no one would actually notice for quite a while.

 

1 hour ago, kendo said:

The only way out if you do not want AI to be capable of making instant player kills is to remove all AI completely - not just 'magically' discount those unwelcome occasions when they shoot and kill you.

 

I agree that this is a weak point in my arguments. Or strong point against them. Still I think what I think.

 

[SharpeXB]

War is hell...

[cardboard_killer]

Now that is a sucking chest wound. Sucking the organs out the exit hole!

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

18 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I survive hits fairly often in the early war aircraft, I've even taken hits, turned around, and shot down the bandit who damaged me. The BoBP matchups are a lot more deadly but every plane is carrying way more guns so like, it's to be expected

Fairly often I get killed or crippled with a single shot of tempest 20mm, 109 20mm does not do the same effect. I know that tempes has four but I'm comparing a single shot. How I known a single shot hit me? I verify it on tacview. Comparing a single bullet, not four weapons instead of one (this would make more difference at convergence range) and rate  of fire too, I guess tempest 20mm is far stronger than german 20mm. I guess IRL it will not, take a look at this: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm 

 

Although at the end I have no access to game code my attempts continue merely subjective, so we should ask the devs if a single bullet of 20mm are the very equal on both sides. Some excerptions of above text: 

 

"Clearly, the resulting scores can only be approximate, and in particular will vary depending on the particular mix of types included in an ammunition belt. The power calculation takes a typical mix of ammunition, where known. They also take no account of the fact that some incendiary mixtures, and some types of HE, were more effective than others. However, they do provide a reasonable basis for comparison. There is no point in trying to be too precise, as the random factors involved in the destructive effects were considerable.

If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores. Also, the Luftwaffe reckoned that it took about four or five times as many 20 mm shells to destroy a heavy bomber as it did 30 mm rounds. The power relationship here is 3.6 times for the MK 108 and 6.2 times for the MK 103, which neatly brackets this observation."

 

Finally, the damage of tempest is 201  /  194 (MK II/MK V) (a single bullet of MK II is stronger, but MK V has better rate of fire) while german 20mm has damage of 110  /  109  /  236 (API/ HEIT/ HE(M)). Explosive ammunition of germans are fairly destructive even at 20mm. The ShvaK damage is 86  /  120 (API/HEI).

If I would choose my ammo belt I should feed it with more explosive rounds.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/

 

Nice forum, maybe well know by devs. Need to register and login to access data and figures.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Even with today's high tech aircraft, the reality is that it is possible that it would take only one bullet hitting the right part(s) to bring it down.  You can only engineer damage resistance so much when working with, refining, or creating, aircraft construction materials and metal alloys.  

 

As far as multiplayer goes,  I think that instant PKs happen a bit too often.  Whether that's damage model or internet quirkiness, I can't tell.

  

I get that cannons were vey powerful, but there's no reason that shooting planes with cannon in the rudder/elevator root from dead 6 should consistently result in an instant PK.  If anything, with the lack of pre-explosion penetrating power of certain cannons, the probability of shrapnel reaching the cockpit should be extremely low.  Heavy caliber API rounds should be a lot more successful in a shot like that - especially considering the volume of fire even a 1 second burst can output. 

 

There's also a lack of "you've got 10 or 20 seconds left" types of shots.  It's either an instant kill, or a long knockout followed by a crash or recovery, or being very likely that your screen is red but you're going to make it.  

Every time my pilot has been injured, it's either been instant kill or a slow bleed out.  I've never seen 10 - 20 seconds or 2 - 3 minutes left to live types of injuries.  

 

In Il-2 '46 there was a text notification that would tell you what body part was injured and could help you guess how much time you had left.  There's no real way in the current version to relay this to pilots who don't use tech chat options, so it's not added for those who do either. 

It's pure guesswork in trying to assess how bad the injury is.  If you weren't instantly PK'd or crashed while knocked out, you only have a varying degree of red and how fast it's turning black and filling your screen to guess your condition. Without knowing where the pilot's been hit, there's no real way to dynamically express the lethality of the injury.  Hence, most injuries are "all or nothing". 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Mobile_BBQ

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, HunDread said:

 

I agree that this is a weak point in my arguments. Or strong point against them. Still I think what I think.

 

 

Funny - I can call attention to multiple weak points.

[SharpeXB]

This is great. Watch what .50 cal API does to an anvil, now imagine that as an engine block or armor plate. That’s a OHK if there ever was one. 
 

 

[-SF-Disarray]

Even a .30 round, or the near metric rounds, hitting a person absent any intervention from armor or major plane components is going to likely kill them or put them in such a state that they will kill themselves being at the controls of a plane. The fact of the matter is bullets hit hard and bodies aren't good at absorbing that kind of impact. Some people will survive it for some short amount of time, maybe long enough to put the plane down safely. But before long that person will die. Does it suck when it happens to you in game? Sure does. This is why I try to avoid bullets where possible, they are bad for your health.

 

The effects of cannon shells might bear some looking at, particularly the shrapnel form these shells. But as I understand it this is being looked at so hopefully it will be better with the next patch.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

The short answer is yes, and no.

 

Yes, when you are the insta killer.

 

No, when you get insta killed.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled weapons argument.

[zelil]

Been wounded pretty bad in a head-ons. I assume most of the damage is to the head or face due to the engine blocking body hits. So there is some degree to how much damage pilot's are taking. If a 50cal bust you in the melon from the rear it's instant lights out though. I get way more Snipes on players from the rear than the front. P38 is the only plane were it doesn't matter. Get Snipes either direction with those bad boy guns

[69th_Panp]

On 3/4/2020 at 9:14 AM, =BLW=Tales said:

Fairly often I get killed or crippled with a single shot of tempest 20mm, 109 20mm does not do the same effect.

Funny as I always get sniped by 109 and insta killed online, and rarely see insta kills on 109 with 51 or tempy

On 3/4/2020 at 11:59 AM, SharpeXB said:

This is great. Watch what .50 cal API does to an anvil, now imagine that as an engine block or armor plate. That’s a OHK if there ever was one.

That's was great Sharpe! wish the in game 50 cals were like that, or i'd settle for the 109s/ 190 not being anvils ?

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

47 minutes ago, 69th_Panp said:

Funny as I always get sniped by 109 and insta killed online, and rarely see insta kills on 109 with 51 or tempy

That's was great Sharpe! wish the in game 50 cals were like that, or i'd settle for the 109s/ 190 not being anvils ?

Armor piercing is a function of the angle of inicidence of the bullet with the plate armor. A controlled fire experiment at an ideal 90 degree angle does not occur always at a real combat. 

 

Deflection of armor piercing is modelled in game? I guess not.

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

Usualy the armor plate is not the first thing the bullet hits. The effects of sloped armour are well know at WWII too. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=213355&start=60