Acceptable in my eyes.
We can fine tune the “n” and “s” and “t” though for optimal scoring. We can even make “t” non-linear and increase faster at very close ranges and slower near the limit and whatnot.
Also you can dive with them to keep them within range. I cannot recall any dogfights I had in ASB that exceeded 5 kilometer altitude and if you spent over 30 seconds within maneuvering range you’ve likely bled energy a bunch anyhow.
Best case scenario? Gaijin extends the crew lock timer, yeah it’ll massively suck for people that genuinely don’t mean to crash, but it’ll still make people think twice before having to wait a GOOD while before they’re able to play their premiums again before denying someone a kill.
It depends HOW non-linear you’d want to go, i mean crashing into an enemy at the final moment, getting as close to them as possible which could deny the teammate their rightful rewards for dogfighting the enemy in the first place.
due to an enemy in proximity, which is the definition of a manoeuvre kill. No game system can read player intent, and thus systems must be designed to assume the most likely thing. The current kill credit system credits “unintentional” kills no differently than intentional ones, yet if we apply your logic then we shouldn’t have any kills credited ever, because the game can never be “sure” it was “intentional”.
Again, rare edge cases are not a counter argument.
In this case where we’re talking about RP and SL bonuses from a company like Gaijin, it very much is an argument, they will want it absolutely air TIGHT.
Things that affect rewards get changed alll the time, this isn’t a good basis for your odd devil’s advocate arguements here.
It does have relevance to the thread and the fact you’re posting as much, with so many posts subsequently, that you’re rage posting.
It’s nothing to do with being psychic, and your want to paint it out that way is absolutely strawman.
If the shot is near them, then they took a shot, simple as that.
90% of the time it is usually for the worse, you really think Gaijin won’t put a magnifying glass on a mechanic that earns bonus RP and SL?
Well sometimes you need a devil’s advocate, since with this debate, @RunaDacino has actually brought on good systems that COULD work
Ah, so not even a proper devil’s advocate arguement, just thinly-veiled “gaijin bad” complaining.
I’m debating against three people at once, your replies come in at different times for me on the forum website, literally what do you expect? I’m not gonna go ahead and waste time constantly going back and forth editing EVERY post I make for a new reply cause that’s just not worth the effort. And again, complaining about posts on the forum, isn’t related to a system that could grant manoeuvre kills in battle.
Yeah no… unintentional shooting happens ALL the time in furballs, where shots that fly off far into another dogfight shouldn’t really be contributing to anything meaningful to that dogfight, especially if those shots didn’t even hit anyone.
It’s true, it literally took an entire review bombing to make sure Gaijin didn’t implement a god-awful change that would’ve severely impacted RP & SL gains, they are literally notorious for constantly shoehorning bad changes for the players, like extending top tier to 16v16, or, again, constantly lowering the general SL & RP gains in general, then going so far to remove the “enemy proximity” RP bonus.
Being a devil’s advocate is the sake of arguing for the other side to promote debate, which is what I’ve been trying to do, and as a result of me giving him suggestions on why parts of his systems wouldn’t work, @RunaDacino managed to come up with good ideas in light of my arguments.
Again, I STILL don’t think you’ve got any experience in any form to be making out it’s hard or weighty in performance, from the standpoint of coding.
And all of this is because you threw out the attack to others making out that you’d not be surprised if they hadn’t even done Computer Science… I feel as though you haven’t done anything close to computer science with these takes.
(Edit - This isn’t flaggable.)
You’re really still hung up on that huh?
It’s what I called you out on, so yea…
You’ve not done anything to quell it, and even repeated the same ignorance to boot.
(Edit - Not flaggable)
Constantly harking back to a post made SEVEN HOURS AGO really isn’t worth anything to the debate, at all. It really doesn’t take much thought on why an algorithm would get confused in an absolute disastrous environment that Air Realistic can be in. Sorry that you seem to be so upset by what I said, but that’s really your problem at this point…
Oh I’m not upset in the slightest, I’m merely pointing out how daft you are for making out that a 16v16 match has any weight with 120k people online and whether or not the game can track values, that it already does on the regular.
That replays have any bearing on the rate of which things can be looked at, or whether or not it’s a possibility, because you’ve already stated so many times that it can’t be done, but this is a thread talking about how it needs to be done.
Don’t make out you haven’t had someone try pounce on you and screw it up, because it happens, no matter how infrequently you want to make out that it does, it does…
You might want to go back and read my post again, since I said “let’s use this as a basis” instead of directly saying they relate to game performance, it was a comparison of data…
Then why continue to attack me about a post made seven hours ago, not contributing to the debate at all?
How would you know how it needs to be done without someone criticising your methods, forcing you to think differently.
Because you keep saying the same ‘reasons’ as to why it can’t be done… That’s why…
And I’m not ‘attacking’ you, I’m actually pressing you about the statements you’ve made, as they are factually incorrect, so much so you’re just spouting negativity for the sake of being dismissive.
It’s nothing to do with the methods, as you already pointed out that your thoughts were that it couldn’t be done, and that the patch day problems were the issue, and that replay file sizes were also the issue, and all these things that were nothing to do with the method, all just to do with a falacy.
Then go back to where I’m speaking with @RunaDacino
Do I outright deny that his system would work in ASB? No, since I actually agree that in that environment his system would work more or less all the time due to how common 1v1s are and how furballs barely happen.
If disagreeing with you is “spouting negativity” then you really need a reality check, notice how I provide scenarios on why some of your methods won’t work, instead of just saying “Naaah this won’t work.”
For the sake of you not blowing a lid and constantly slowing down this debate on how we can improve kill credits in Air RB, how about I retract my statement on server performance and focus on the methods in which an algorithm would be able to credit kills in an environment like Air RB, sound fair?
You’re looking for reasons to say it won’t work, so much so you make scenarios where it isn’t an issue and actually isn’t that hard.
Hence why you saying that they’d have to record the game is so silly… Because it literally shows you have no knowledge in this area to play ‘devils advocate’ to avoid being called out.
You’re not playing devils advocate, you’re just being dismissive as all heck.
And you are, just arguing to argue.
^^ You’ve created this picture in your head that I downright don’t want any of your suggestions on how this should work, yet you got this above here.
Unfortunately for you, these are very real scenarios that happen often enough that NEED to be addressed, whether you like it or not. I’ll say this again, If someone isn’t looking for reasons why a method won’t work, there can’t be positive change on said methods. Right now you’re just going in circles, and at this point, imma probably head to bed since this debate has sort of fizzled out, goodnight y’all.