I totally understand your point of view. The previous system had funny situations sometimes, where you could “die” and then still land and repair. It was possible the same way as severely damaged planes can now repair. In the old system that would be a kill credit for an attacker anyway, in the new system it’s not.
When I die due to severe damage, I look at this situation: “in the old system I would already be dead anyway, so I don’t really lose anything”. I see this new system as delayed death, so I’m never mad that I died because the battle ended.
But he did enough to take you out of the combat. I guess it all depends how you look at things. In my opinion that person did enough to get a kill credit, but that’s just my opinion of course.
It’s not cause you don’t agree with others, anyone is free to disagree, it’s cause you are doing the wrong comparison when you say that you prefer to receive 80% instead of 40%, when what you do for those 80% would give you 100%(plus the crit) before, and with that you are spreading misinformation about how this change works. If you just crit a target now, you’ll get the same assist in the end as before when someone else finishes it. The severe damage basically replaced those kills where the marker stayed grey for a few seconds, the difference is that now it stays red until it really dies. Maybe that is where your confusion comes from, seeing a red marker target that you shoot before getting killed gives you 80% of a kill instead of a kill assist, but in the “old” system that would be a kill with 100% score reward.
This is nothing new - at least in Air RB if you refer to an Air RB match. As soon as your plane got critted you are unable to use the map border as you will be killed instantly and the kill will be assigned to the guy which produced the damage.
I mean your argument makes sense from your pov - especially in such cases - but from my perspective you might acknowledge that there are a lot of grey areas by looking at this point.
This declaring as death is simply not considering that there are cases which debunk this function as pure nonsense.
In Air RB it happens frequently that you play 1 vs 1 as last players of both teams. No matter if you intercept a high bomber (or being the bomber itself) - you might take calculated risks. So if i kill the last guy i won the match, it doesn’t matter if my only engine was shot out in this process.
Same as landing with a dead engine - experienced pilots are able to nurse their planes back to an airfield - it makes zero sense to declare them as dead.
i do agree - after several thousand matches in both B7A2 variants i noticed an increase of dead engines in them - no fire, oil or water, just dead.
I mean a main advantage of radial engines was the durability and damage resistance compared to inline engines.
And i also noticed strange situations (twin or multi engine enemies on fire for 6 minutes an even more) and a very high rate of engine fires 3-4 weeks ago - but they produced no instant damage. I managed several times to land and repair on the forward airfield whilst my plane was burning like hell - but this disappeared and now i deal with dead engines:-)
But in my opinion the old system of plane destruction made much more sense than the new severe damage one.
I’m pretty sure that the engine damage and horizontal stabilizers were added to severe damage just to calm Russian players who were not happy when the devs introduced the severe damage mechanic at the beginning.
There is a very good reason why the previous system worked how it worked. And it worked like that for years, right? I’m not saying the old system didn’t have any issues, but in my opinion the new system creates many more issues than it solves.
There is no easy way to fix these issues. There will always be someone unhappy, saying “but this doesn’t make sense”, I totally get it. Some choices right now are between a bad option and an even worse option. You can’t really completely solve these issues created by the new system. And this is why I don’t like the new system. It’s very complicated, it creates silly situations, it gives us less rewards, it gives us much less score, and the only good thing about it is that partial frag. But the question is, do we really need that partial frag? I mean, it will help with kill-based tasks and challenges, but at the same time it will make assist-based tasks and challenges harder. And what about critical hits, we still don’t know if that’s the part of the new system or just a bug. I don’t really see many good things about this new system.
We have a common understanding about almost everything, so it doesn’t matter if we have deviating views on the topic “declared as dead” when the game is over.
Regarding this thread:
You might agree that it makes no sense trying to enlighten people regarding their misconceptions if they refuse to take the red pill. So from a holistic pov there is no need to invest more time on this topic if the RU forum is the decisive factor in all relevant aspects.
Just look a this thread and the parallel “no kill steal fix” thread. Even if all facts and common sense says A - some guys insist on B. Discussing with people using feelings or defending non-fact based opinions is futile.
In a match earlier tonight, a burst of 12.7mm MG fire shot out my P-47’s engine instantly.
No reduction in power as the engine dies slowly, no fire, just dead instantly.
For the record, in the same match I also put a 76mm APHE shell through a low flying aircraft and he didn’t even notice it…so damage modeling is utterly bogus right now.
“Severe Damage” needs major tweaks or a reversion. Alternatively, Gaijin could compensate vehicles for the durability they should have but lack with BR reductions…that’s a fair means to balance.
I am not sure if you had the chance to follow other threads dealing with “Severe damage” and related side effects - but imho the circumstantial evidence (like reducing numbers of crits for tasks) make any hopes for a reversal highly unlikely - imho your chances to get hit by meteor are way higher.
I have no kept close track of this topic or others on this matter–but that tracks with Gaijin’s standard operating procedure.
Once something goes in, changing anything fundamental about it thereafter is like pulling teeth. (This why new proposals need to be well framed from the start.)
I dont believe It would break the service record because eveything would be getting more kills. I also dont believe gaijin do follow the K/D of vehicles for everything and there are many examples that you probably know of due to compression also vehicles that are at a position because of there roll and not k/d
The problem is, we don’t live in ideal world. Statistically, that would be the case only if every plane had the same flight performance, the same guns and every plane was played by the same number of players.
But of course it’s not the case. If let’s say 60% of the team use PlaneA, just imagine how would different number of kills from one enemy death affect the K:D of this specific plane when compared to other planes.
That would be a huge problem, and before I tested this new mechanics I actually feared they are going to break stats this way and that would have a very serious consequences. Fortunately, they figured this out and kept 1:1 K:D from each death, which is a good thing on a global scale.
Not long ago the devs replied in one of the Q&A (if I remember correctly) that they decided to raise the BR of many French vehicles only because in the top10 K:D vehicles 7 of them were French.
I’m sure they also take other factors into consideration, but there is no doubt that K:D is a very important part of balancing in the game.
All the above just shows how broken BR v historically accurate actually is and the fact gaijin holds vehicles in BR’s by buffing and nerfing weapons. There is nothing realistic in this game, it is a lie.
Didn’t solve my problem here, I don’t mind the reward being less but the mechanic made some aircraft stay “alive” longer although not being able to fly anymore, just prolonging the process of dead and give others time to “share” the kill.
