Then were not quick enough - tough.
Wow, it really does make assists worth more than kills… That’s amazingly cool.
1 Like
Here’s my thoughts:
PROS:
- It helps us actually realise our shots are hitting and doing something (where previously I thought that most of my shots missed even when aiming at the indicator)
- It gives more rewards for and encourages teamwork and helping
- It limits frustration when someone “cleans” your kill
CONS:
- Decreases motivation to play as bombers
- GUIs are somewhat clunky - the +x on top of the numbers are kinda weird (but I’m not really against it personally), and the message that basically says that a severely damaged plane was destroyed is way too long to read and takes up too much space. Maybe just “Target Finished”?
Recommendations:
Add a badge for when you destroy an enemy aircraft while being severely damaged.
In this case:
A kill is worth 3132 SL normally.
You get 627 for a kill under the new system, which is 20% and the other 80% is under severe damage, unless you got a kill without severe damage, then it’s 3132 for a kill again, unless someone else already did severe damage to that target and then you get 40% supposedly.
I have no idea what I’m looking at, or how it’s formulated currently, but I do see this having a lot of good potential, and a lot more tracking of ‘skill’ xD
Honestly I feel like severe damage and critical damage need to switch
Critical damage sounds more significant IMO, as in the aircraft is in critical condition rather than just wounded
Though to be fair idk how to word “severe hit” lol
1 Like
Could just have hit, component hit, and critical hit or something, so you actually get an idea as to what you’re doing, critical means nothing, I get critical hits in SPAA all the time because I destroyed a landing gear, which does literally nothing but just improve their performance by removing weight.
1 Like
Hmm, there’s two angles to this. On one hand, yes, “critical” is definitely a step worse from “severe” so in that purely objective, no-context sense they should be swapped. This would make sense if the game was brand new.
On the other hand, we’ve had Critical Hits for a decade now, and changing that name to something else, but also reusing its original name for a new mechanic would be far too confusing.
I suppose the new mechanic could change to something else, but figuring out what is tricky. “Fatal Damage” swings too far in the opposite direction, as it’s not necessarily fatal, and that could backfire massively because people will think “they’re going to die so I can stop shooting”… which is exactly the problem this system aims to solve.
Quickly looking up synonyms for critical/severe gives some pretty amusing non-serious options (Dire Damage, Perilous Damage, Momentous Damage, Hefty Damage), but it’s ultimately probably best to leave it as is.
The magic of language is that people tend to take meaning by context and expectation, not literal dictionary definitions. While it might seem a bit backwards when deliberately thinking about it right now, give it a few months into this going live and no one will even think to question it; their brains will automatically associate “severe” with “worse” in this context.
A decade or not, people have no idea what a critical hit actually means and critical hits have never been all that critical anyways.
Might as well take the opportunity to make it a better system for the first time in a decade and rework it to be logical and outline exactly what is what.
1 Like
take off my chatban pls so i can communicate with my team
1 Like
1 Like
Not, really. The kill stealing still exists. Its just been rebranded under flashy on-screen titles. If a plane is spiraling to the ground, on fire or not, and someone comes in for a couple of shots, they can still take what was going to be 100% to you. Now you just get 80% and they get 40% for some weird reason. Change the split to 95/5 and maybe its discourages that kinda of behaviour.
Again, not really. In the rare case a fighter can limb home, sure. But it’s still kill stealing.
Without dynamic repair costs, you are handing both a death and a full repair bill to someone who was severely damaged but not killed before the match ends. And to my understanding, it doesn’t confirm the kill for the player who severely damaged them either.
Overall, its not really fix people think it is.
1 Like
yea pro tip dont talk about “funny plant matter” in the help chat ingame
A issue about the premise “as long as an aircraft can theoretically continue to fight, it’ll not be considered as destroyed”. Wouldn’t it be contradictory then for gunner-centric aircraft to consider them unable to fight when the pilot is hit? In such cases it’s the gunners who are responsible for inflict damage on the enemies, and their ability to contribute to aerial combat is independent of piloting circumstances. A drifting aircraft can still be lethal as long as the gunners can fire…
1 Like
If you didn’t secure the kill, it’s not kill stealing, no matter how “inevitable” it was.
Regardless, the new system does not exist to discourage finishing off damaged targets, it exists to ensure that players who do the vast majority of the damage (but did not secure the kill) are properly rewarded for this. You get 80% of the reward for doing 80% of the work.
Despite all the worrying about this in this thread, it’s effectively a non-issue. As you already said yourself immediately before this, actually limping back to base in the new Severe Damage state will be incredibly rare. On the flip side, ending the match without having yet crashed in what is almost certainly an inevitably dead aircraft is simply avoiding that death thanks to a timer.
There’s a certain irony to your two arguments here, as you’re simultaneously claiming that finishing off an “obviously dead” plane is kill stealing… yet the exact same “obviously dead” plane shouldn’t count as such just because the match’s end interrupts the fight? You can’t have both.
Ultimately, situations where you’ll be forced to pay repairs (economics are never an argument against game mechanics anyway, they can be adjusted separately) when you could have landed and repaired will drastically, massively outweighed by the times in which you couldn’t.
And more importantly, this mechanic exists to prevent abuse (same reason we have proximity credit for J-ing out), preventing a clearly doomed aircraft from not crashing just long enough for an arbitrary timer to expire, denying what you yourself claim in the kill stealing context to be a legitimate and “owed” kill. Again, can’t have both.
1 Like
Had a thought. Any plans on adding this to ground and naval in the future?
1 Like
Excellent point, and this is something I’ve wanted to see for years too. Aircraft should stay controllable until all pilots and gunners are taken out, though obviously if your pilots are gone you can’t control the plane.
Though on that note, bringing over a form of Ground/Naval’s crew swap mechanics, where physically possible (so B-17 yes, Ju 87 no), would also be much appreciated.
Would certainly be a good idea, especially for Naval.
1 Like
Agree to disagree, I guess. Chalk it up to the subjectivity of what one may consider “is no longer a threat”. Would you be able to share any combat stories from the last hundred or so years of aviation combat that highlights the need to follow an aircraft following their kill all the way to the ground to ensure it was “dead” dead or instances that solidify the development of any sort of doctrine that shows the necessity of a wingman expending additional munitions or AAMs to “finish off” a target or has the fireball spiraling to earth at pick-a-mach not been sufficient enough?
Maybe for you, sure. I see it more as an issue for non-premium account users who don’t have their repair costs waived. And it doesn’t detract from the need for a more flushed out dynamic repair system that this sort of mechanic could use (as well as the overall game).
A significant issue with this mechanic is just what is being defined a “severely damaged”, which it turn brings the appropriate payout for work done into question. Someone earlier showed an image of their control services being yellow or orange, and that counted as a “severely damaged” when the aircraft was, more or less, fine. We have this 120% figure between the damager and the finisher, and I don’t agree with the method we are getting to it and would prefer to see the “severely damaged” pay out the full 100% and the finisher get that remaining 20%. Call it “Finisher”, call it “Assist”, the verbiage doesn’t really matter. But I also understand that again, this is very much dependent on what we are counting as damage.
1 Like
Real world doctrine doesn’t really apply to WT/games, but what’s actually important here is the perceived “fairness” to all parties involved.
The current system we have now credits kills on aircraft (planes and helis both), in many cases, far before they actually lose the ability to be a threat, which always feels unfair to the player being attacked/killed by a “dead” enemy, seeing as the game’s own UI said they were dead; the game’s UI is essentially lying.
The the two main ways to fix this very real problem are, first, to take all control away from the damaged player the moment the game decides they’re “dead”… but this comes with even more unfairness in the other direction, as the player is having control of their character/vehicle stripped away at an entirely arbitrary amount of damage (such are things in games that don’t use 0-100 HP pools). This is even worse (much like forced bailouts).
The other method is essentially what we’re testing here, and that is to “raise” the amount of damage needed for the game to consider an enemy as dead. In an absolute and purely objective system this should require nothing less than the pilot(s) being either dead or bailed out. The devs have opted for something between this and what we have now, though thankfully it seems closer to this. This is the only option that ensures the attacker isn’t killed by an enemy the game has explictly told them is “dead”, while also not arbitrarily taking control away from the defender. That’s what makes this the ideal.
Would absolutely be great. But it’s always important to have these discussions as their own topics, because if they all get lumped and twisted together, we end up with people arguing against a good system simply due to certain details of implementation. It’s the same way with aircraft damage models, such as helis having notoriously bad ones (to the degree that this is on the roadmap). By getting rid of misplaced kill notifications, we shift the conversation from “dead helis are killing me” to simply “heli damage models are bad”, which is the actually-useful point of discussion.
So if we were to see this system implemented as is, it would open the door (further) to “we need more dynamic repair costs” as its own issue to tackle. But it’s important to keep in mind that severely damaging a plane only to “lose” the kill to an external factor is the exact same scenario whether that external factor is another player or the game ending.
And on that note:
This is definitely an issue, but as always, bugs and/or implementation issues don’t detract from an underlying system, it simply means those issues need to be fixed on their own.
