Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2012, 09:39 AM
Luno13 Luno13 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 370
Default

Too complicated. 50/50 always.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luno13 View Post
Too complicated. 50/50 always.
Historically, some allied units sliced the pie more finely than that, with pilots getting a 1/3 or a 1/4 of a kill. But, whatever works. Any partial kill credit would be an improvement.

Mostly, though, I'd love to see some consistency. Sometimes, I'll kill a plane and I'll get an instant "enemy destroyed" message. Other times, with equivalent damage, and equivalent circumstances, I'll get nothing until the plane actually crashes, giving "friendly" planes ample time for vulching.

It's definitely a bug with the programming. It's a very old bug; it's been the second biggest offliner complain for a decade.

By comparison to the now fixed AI problems (THANK YOU TD!) it should be easy to instantly assign kill credit when a plane catches on fire, blows up, falls apart or has the pilot killed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:35 PM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

How about a system where kills are only credited if it can be verified by at least one other friendly pilot or ground troops?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2012, 01:27 AM
Luno13 Luno13 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 370
Default

That could be cool. You could "claim" a kill in a post-mission drop-down list, and it only counts if an AI was around to see it and survives to "tell" about it.

I suppose humans could verify, but witnesses could leave the game, lie if they have a spite issue, or forget to report, etc. Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. But it's better than nothing.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool ).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2012, 07:43 AM
Whacker Whacker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luno13 View Post
Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. But it's better than nothing.
I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit. Hence my earlier thoughts. If kill stealing is a problem online that others have indicated, then this also would be further argument against a simplistic 50/50 split.

Quote:
Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool ).
Seconding all of this, great ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Luno13 Luno13 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit.
That's what I said
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:12 AM
Whacker Whacker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luno13 View Post
That's what I said
My fault then. To be fair to myself, you did kinda contradict yourself a few times, so I was confused. Focused on what I thought the gist of your response was.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.