Yeah I don’t really know what’s going on with the mechanic, been testing it in customs and it is incredibly hit or miss. I’ll have to check the bug reports
To be real, it wouldn’t be that much to add, if it’s not there already…
When you shoot past a tank, but don’t hit it, that shot is registered. It’s literally already there what would be ‘needed’ to get this sort of mechanic even remotely ‘able’.
1 Like
Video games can’t do this.
Missile evasion is not the same.
You just want free frags from people that make genuine mistakes cause you can’t keep up with other far more skilled players.
2 Likes
It depends - a “real” maneuver kill is rather rare as most people are simply overwhelmed by the challenges outside point & click in a head-on.
So in the very rare 1 vs 1s i do agree that there might be point in thinking about a reward - if both players go undamaged into a duel situation, but from a pure pilot perspective the satisfaction to have caused a maneuver kill has a much higher value than a few SL or RP.
Applying this for missile slingers looks even counterproductive. If my son spams Phoenixes from 30 km away and his target tries to notch / dodge / whatever and crashes there is no need to give a player somehow near and doing his own thing a reward for doing nothing out of nowhere.
Ofc they do.
I just came out of a match 3.7 - 4.7 (replay link) in which i counted 7 crashes. That is more than 20% of the full 32 player lobby. Ofc all were undamaged in 6 cases without even an enemy near. We have:
02:52 dive bomber killing 2 bases and just j out (BTD)
03:23 guy trying high speed low bomb run and crash (I-185)
04:35 guy compressing at high speed near ground (XP-50)
07:51 guy attacking ground and fly into a tree (Firebrand)
10:00 guy taking off and decide that he has to go (Fw 190)
10:53 guy crashing into tents when trying to land (I-185)
11:19 guy flying with activated airbrake crashing into a pillbox (B7A2)
Why should anyone even think about getting rewards for a maneuver kill when a simple example like above shows that there is no objective reason for that???
The 190 and the BTD j out - i saw just “crashed” in the battle log, no kill reward.
Quite simply, the ‘reason’ for the manuevuer kill, in all of your examples, are negated by the first example you are highlighting… That no-one was even near, or for the more direct matter engaging.
Video games can’t do what? By genuine mistake, do you mean the enemy trying to go as low as they can and crashing trying to avoid enemy missiles?
If there is no enemy near (“near” would need a proper definition to continue) then there shouldn’t be any sort of maneuver kill reward, so your example is fine by me.
(this may differ from the OP suggestion)
3 Likes
I see the difference between long range engagements with AAMs and pure gun fights at prop BRs - i wrote 6 out of 7 as the XP-50 was trying to kill an enemy but was way to too fast and unable to pull up.
But the rest - simply no comment. I mean i understand that during these days a lot of kids try to grind (and we have a grinding event running), but i saw similar stuff in replays of high tier matches by base bombing premium F-4s.
So even if there would be a kind of consensus within the player base - i agree with @Minimann333 - it boils down that the result would be free SL & RP created by random effects - gaijin won’t even consider this.
1 Like
To clarify my position, I believe there should be maneuver kills, but distance would be quite restrictive… as an example something like 1km maximum (could even be less). (Edit: This should then hopefully give the reward to the right person most of the time).
I am thinking of the times of basically being in a close dogfight at ground level where someone (undamaged) hits the ground. It would also be nice to get something more than a “hehe” smirk when some 109 impacts the ground at 700+km/hr from diving straight straight down at WEP from 4km high to your Zero at ground level… :)
I don’t really play missile matches (only low tier ones), so I can’t really say much to that other than I would think it should be similar where the missile would have to be close to the crashing plane… i.e. not just locked on from 10km away or so.
I’ve hit the ground a few times while nearly constantly looking back to try to dodge/escape someone who has gotten in to a better position to me through superior tactics (or even luck). And if it’s considered a crash as they haven’t hit me, I’ve many times all-chat explained that it wasn’t a crash on purpose and sorry they didn’t get a reward for it.
1 Like
He means that there would be no way for the game’s code to distinguish between what crash is accidental, on purpose, and the circumstances of each crash, whether malicious or not.
1 Like
As long as it’s right most of the time it’s fine. With the amount of data War Thunder handles I am sure they can get close.
2 Likes
It really isn’t as simple as you make it out to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me you have no background in computer science.
My background is Matlab, and I know Matlab is great for matrices and it really wouldn’t be tough in that language 😅 idk about gaijins spaghettified code though. But also the same sentiments were made when they were talking about introducing radar missiles btw. It’s definitely possible, idk about easy though.
It would be a massive undertaking, and with how much data the code would need to collect all at once, with 16v16 battles, over the 120,000+ people online most of the time, it would pull a humungous amount of server usage, which would be pretty expensive for Gaijin to mitigate by expanding them. Another thing I noted is in top tier with fox 3s, or even fox 1s which somebody else in this thread brought up. If you were in an F-14 and slinging Phoenix’s 30+ miles away at high-altitude, crediting kills for crashed players who hit the (mostly janky) hitboxes of trees or accidentally pull down too hard, it would MASSIVELY promote this already incredibly lazy style of gameplay, and would make RP and SL gains pretty one-sided.
1 Like
It really is.
It’s a simple formula and a check which can likely be done already.
That’s exageration, and it doesn’t help your stance in the slightest.
2 Likes
The main thing it needs to track is:
- Distance between 2 planes (already tracked by the spotting/rendering systems)
- Time spent within critical distance (A.I seem to track this. A.I bombers in air sim feel like they gain increasing accuracy the longer you sit on their tail, same for AAA for ground battles.)
Using these two things that the game already tracks,
a logic could be introduced along the lines of
“When 2 planes are under s km distance, start incrementing timer. When timer exceeds t seconds, mark the two planes as egligible for maneuver kills should either crash without any hits that override credit.”
“In event that multiple planes have gained egligibility for maneuver kill credit, credit the player that has the counter at a higher value.”
“In event the two parties are no longer within s kilometer distance, start decrementing the timer and completely reset it regardless of value over ns kilometer distance.”
So for instance,
1 km to start ticking
30 seconds to qualify
3 (n=3, s=1) km to reset counter regardless of count.
So, an example that would qualify:
Fw190 vs F4U
Fw190 dives the F4U and begins flat scissors with repeated head-on passes (planes spend multiple long seconds well under 500 meters, much less 1 kilometer)
After about 3 such passes taking 60 seconds, the F4U reverses the FW190 and takes shot
Fw190 pulls too hard while trying to roll out of the way and enters a spin
90 seconds passed altogether as F4U overshoots
10 seconds later the FW190 crashes into the dirt.
The above system would unamously would award the F4U in this scenario with the kill credit. Even though there is a spitfire in the vicinity, it was never within 1 kilometer of the FW190 and even once it was, its counter would be behind the F4U’s
picture this:
im dogfighting a mig21. im guns on, but due to him having ran out of energy trying to deny me the shot, he crashes. NO DOUBT that was my kill. yet, i get nothing?
not a “free frag”, and not him making a mistake, he was dying either way.
1 Like
Yep, a textbook manoeuvre kill.
1 Like
If it’s so simple, then tell me it.
And exactly how is it exaggerating, have you not noticed how poorly the servers perform on patch days? And you seriously want more terabytes of data being recorded all at once? I want what you’re smoking.