The assist is 2/3rd of the kill. For example, killing a target at the same (or higher) BR is 180 score. So in the same situation, an assist will be 180 * 2 / 3 = 120.
Most players prefer to see %, which complicates things a bit. To be precise, I would have to write that the assist is 66.(6)% of the kill. But I don’t know if all countries use the same notation or not (the correct notation in my country is actually 66,(6)%, and for most players it will surely look very weird). I usually just write that assist is 60%, but this isn’t correct and it would make more sense to write it’s 66% or even 67% (because it’s actually closer to this number). But as long as you don’t do any calculations, it doesn’t really matter that much anyway.
If you want to do calculations, just use 2/3rd, because this is the only accurate way.
PS. This is just a curiosity. I’m pretty sure like 99.(9)% of the players are not interested in all this ;).
Wouldn’t color difference be more effective than specific wording?
It’s not like players are going to read it every time as taking the eyes off the battle might make them miss important things in the game.
Having:
“killed” be red.
“Kill counted” be orange.
“Assist” be yellow.
And lower scoring actions white.
(Edit: maybe “severe damage” orange and “kill counted” red?)
Would be way clearer and wording would be less important as players would read it the first times and then get an instinct reaction to the colors after a few hours of play.
Why was attacker side chosen?
can you gives more details?
As told earlier(1st post under opening post), i think that this choice of making attacker side being rewarded at end of game, is wrong on realism and in-game experience.
The original message was already specific, and so is the new one… That does not excuse the fact that it is abhorrently long and detrimental to gameplay.
Specific can also be
Severely Damaged Target Hit At [insert game time] On [insert aircraft part] Destroyed By Friendly [insert name] At [insert game time]
But is this good? No?
Easy solution, leave it alone! It should be what it is if the match ends, I can’t think how many times I’ve been marked as killed or had a crit and made it back to base…
Exactly! And that’s without even mentioning how this affects prop gameplay, making the waste of energy/positioning for an “already dead” enemy way more possible, especially by the less experienced pilots.
I honestly can’t grasp how Gaijin came to the conclusion that a separate marker is more troublesome than complete lack of visual identification and/or separation between an “active threat” and a “severely damaged” enemy.
I find it amusing how they prioritize throwing the learning curve for 2 entire game modes (AAB, ARB) out of the window and explain it with short-term confusion by a whole one new marker.
Its cherry picking. Same as ‘someone was able to fly and land helicopter with its tail gone’ scenario.
More often than not, stories you mention are one time occurrences and prove nothing.
And in a game terms, its just a handful of SL for a plane lost. It is better to keep it nice and easy and reward the attacker.
we agree that the current system is WAY better than the one proposed which is unnecessarily complex. Unfortunately, after all the effort they put to mask this reward reduction system, there’s no way they are going to discard it.
what I fail to see is how counting people that are not dead as dead can even marginally improve the situation. If the game ends and you’re just “severe damaged”, you should not be counted as dead. You’re dead when you’re dead.