Jump to content


Plane on plane collision

Feedback Physics Combat

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Sgt_Mikaelus #1 Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-05-2017

Good morning ladies and gents.

 

First of all, I'd like to take the time to belatedly say that I love the remake of this game. Thank you for taking the time to salvage it and turn it into something that is really enjoyable to play. Since 2.0 came out it actually pulled me away from most other games, including WoT, so it's safe to say I got hooked.

 

There are certain things that I wish that could be added to the game, like the national insignia replacement that someone else mentioned on the forums, or more planes, but those are arguably not core features and I have the patience to see what will be added to the game as time passes and the playerbase grows.

 

But let's cut to the chase. I started this thread because of a behavior I've noticed that makes no sense to me, and that is ramming. Now, don't take me wrong, I know that this was a tactic that was actually used back in the day, but I will explain what I mean. Personally, I came to enjoy the fighter play style the most, so more often than not, I'm flying some light fighter, and I currently play mainly down the British fighter line. I have noticed that every time I end up face to face with an enemy plane, when it's a heavy fighter or something of bigger size in general, the enemy plane will try to cut into my vector to ram my plane if we pass close enough to each other. The AI planes are really effective in this maneuver and I've noticed that the players have started copying it as well. Now, my problem with this is that while I'm not a pilot and I can't claim to have extensive knowledge in WWII air-fighting doctrines, I find this notion really ridiculous. Who in their right mind would want to collide head on with another airplane? Even if that would be viable in lower tiers, where the smaller fighters are made of materials such as paper, canvas and wood, who would want to collide face to face with a jet fighter. Not only are those planes made of much sturdier materials, but the speeds on both sides are much higher as well, making the collision catastrophic for everyone involved. Yet it seems that despite getting a fighter through the cockpit, the heavier plane just shrugs it off and keeps flying as if nothing happened...

 

Even when taking the heavy metal plane against light paper plane paradigm into account, I don't believe anyone mindlessly just rushed the nose of their plane into someone coming at them head on. Considering that there are people in both vehicles and they are both cruising a few hundred meters above ground through the "magic" of aerodynamics, I doubt anyone in their right mind would want to damage their machine enough to risk plunging down since us humans are not really known for our ability to fly on our own. And let's face it, even a lighter plane has hard parts that could damage engines, pass through glass and turn the pilot and crew into a fine red paste, and in general cause other kinds of nastiness. In short, I think that, for one, the AI planes shouldn't be so fond of flying straight through lighter planes, and second, that such head on collisions shouldn't really be survivable for anyone. No matter how much armor that thing has on its nose, it's not a bloody tank. And even if it was, an aluminum airframe weight about 8 tons (if we take my current plane, the Supermarine Attacker, as an example) and coming at you at 600 km/h (or somewhere around 1200 km/h if you want to consider the other plane flying towards it with equal if not greater speed) is certain to ruin your day.

 

For the science nerds out there:

If we take the simplest formula for momentum, that would be p = m * v, where m is the mass in kilos and v the velocity in meters per second. If we take the previous example of a Supermarine Attacker (weighing in game 7955 kg) flying into something while cruising at 600 km/h, and considering that this something is stationary, we are left with 1325859,85 Newtons, or an approximate 135200.079 kilograms of force. And that's considering that the receiver is not a plane flying in the opposite direction adding its own momentum into this mess. I doubt the tensile strength of the materials involved is high enough to sustain 135.2 tons, at a thickness that it would still allow it to fly, unless that plane had a nose made of mithril. And again, that force should be more than double if we do the calculations right and add the other plane's speed and mass into the equation, but I won't go that far. And let's not even start with how small the area of contact is and all that jazz. I love science, but if we get started with that one, I'll be here until Monday. I'm not a physicist.

 

As a final note, just consider how punishing collisions can be when flying too close to another plane that's heading the same direction. If you as much as bump wings, sometimes half of your plane's hp goes down the drain. The forces there are hugely inferior to the ones of a head on collision, and yet crushing your wing against the wing of another aircraft can cause lots of damage and I'm perfectly fine with that. So perhaps you should reconsider how the damage calculation for collisions is done. I know the game is not meant to be a flight simulator, but at the same time a complete departure from realism is not your goal either, I believe.

 

Once again, thank you for the great effort put into remaking this whole game, and thank you for reading.

Keep up the good work!


Edited by Sgt_Mikaelus, 26 November 2017 - 01:49 PM.


omglaserspewpew #2 Posted 26 November 2017 - 03:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2097 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

A lot of words for "a problem" that in reality isn't a problem and was talked about a lot, if you would spare the time to search the forums.

 

In brief:

 

1. The current ramming mechanic was settled on gradually through the years, because more realistic systems just weren't fun and were potentially really gamebreaking. There was a time when even the smallest touch would annihilate both planes, no matter who you rammed. This means that a 1 HP light fighter could kill a full HP bomber instantly and decide the win this way. It also meant that in a furball, your teammates were a bigger danger to you than enemies. It. Did. Not. Work.

 

2. You will see that as you progress in the game and become more skillful, you will be rammed less. What this means is: in 99% you are the one responsible for the ram. People who have a clue, don't get rammed by the enemies, like ever. The bots DO NOT intentionally ram you unless they have a very clear advantage, like a HF vs LF. If you get rammed like this, it's your own fault, because you shouldn't head-on a heavy in the first place. And yes, you can always evade a ram in an agile fighter. If you can't, it means you need to learn how to fly it.

 

3. This is not a realistic sim game. Don't even try to bring real-life physics into it.


Edited by omglaserspewpew, 26 November 2017 - 03:32 PM.


jakub_czyli_ja #3 Posted 26 November 2017 - 04:15 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 5696 battles
  • 9,469
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postomglaserspewpew, on 26 November 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

1. The current ramming mechanic was settled on gradually through the years, because more realistic systems just weren't fun and were potentially really gamebreaking. There was a time when even the smallest touch would annihilate both planes, no matter who you rammed. This means that a 1 HP light fighter could kill a full HP bomber instantly and decide the win this way. It also meant that in a furball, your teammates were a bigger danger to you than enemies. It. Did. Not. Work.

System wasn't bad, but in post-Soviet mindset of WoWP developers, ramming was ok, because brave fighters during Operation Barbarossa were ramming Nazi planes (or at least Soviet propaganda said so).

So frag for ram was a sure thing to get a frag and a mark on a plane.

And that broke the game, because taught noobs bad habits then, and is teaching them now.

Block Quote

 2. You will see that as you progress in the game and become more skillful, you will be rammed less. What this means is: in 99% you are the one responsible for the ram. People who have a clue, don't get rammed by the enemies, like ever. The bots DO NOT intentionally ram you unless they have a very clear advantage, like a HF vs LF. If you get rammed like this, it's your own fault, because you shouldn't head-on a heavy in the first place. And yes, you can always evade a ram in an agile fighter. If you can't, it means you need to learn how to fly it.

Only unless you are in dogfight against a bit more maneuverable plane that doesn't care, because will respawny anyway.

Block Quote

 3. This is not a realistic sim game. Don't even try to bring real-life physics into it.

Sad that common sense goes same way.



omglaserspewpew #4 Posted 26 November 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2097 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Jeff thinks people around here are smoking too much pot, which messes with their brain. After reading your post, Jakub, I'm inclined to agree. :unsure:

 

Giving frags for ramming or not was always beside the point. A ram that killed someone had a profound and irreversible impact on the match. Whether or not someone was awarded a frag or not was a pointless argument. If you could win a match by ramming, who the hell cared if you got a frag or not??

 

In over a dozen thousand matches played, I was never rammed if I didn't wanted to be. You have strange problems.



Sgt_Mikaelus #5 Posted 26 November 2017 - 08:46 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-05-2017

Wow... now that's a very interesting reaction.

 

Mate, I don't know who you are, or who you think you are but cut the attitude. I came here to discuss, I gave examples and made the issue as clear as I possibly could and your answer sums up to "OMG LTP N00b". Really? In a forum that is supposed to be about feedback is that REALLY an answer? I doubt anything I said was aggressive or offensive because I really had no reason to be, but lo and behold... a wild forum troll appears.

 

For the record, I did a quick search for collisions, didn't find anything and started the topic. If it has been discussed in another thread and I missed it, the computer gods hava gifted us with links and the magic of copy and paste. Use them wisely. If that's too much work for you, guess what! You don't have to do it! Because no one asked you to reply to this thread.

 

Also, if you bothered reading (shocking, I know), you'd realize that I'm talking ONLY about head on collisions. The rest of them are fine. I didn't demand a change, I did not say anything negative about anyone responsible, I question the logic of it. (You know... discussion? Debating ideas? Civil conversation? Look them up.) I'm only talking about the case when you're going straight to another plane and you're trying to squeeze every last possible bullet before turning away, and yes, there's a good chance that with all the speed involved the maneuverability of your plane will be impaired. It takes very little for someone to cut your way in such close distance, unless you simply chicken out too quickly. It's a staring competition and it adds to the experience. What I'm saying is keep it in game by discouraging head on collisions instead of making it "bigger plane wins all", because that's not how it works. Both pilots want to steer out of it, and that should be reflected in the game. Throwing a highly damaged plane onto an undamaged one leaves you with two wrecks, but it can break the game because it's an easy I win button, and so it is removed. Head on collision leaves you also with two wrecks, but it's not removed, leaving the heavier plane the winner.... how is that NOT an "I win button" for the larger planes? Oh... and by the way, when both planes are downed, nobody wins, so I don't see why that scenario you presented as gamebreaking gives the rammer a win, but hey...

 

Anyway, enough time wasted on this. I hope that the first post in this thread will be of some help to anyone interested. If not, that's also fine. That's what feedback is for anyway, but it seems that some people didn't get the memo... people who are not even tasked with dealing with feedback. But hey... who am I to tell someone where to make their home. Some like the countryside, others like basements, others like forums...

 

Go to the forums they said... it would be fun they said...

Cheers

 


Edited by Sgt_Mikaelus, 26 November 2017 - 08:48 PM.


omglaserspewpew #6 Posted 26 November 2017 - 09:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2097 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I of course admit that my answer was as blunt as it can get. Sorry if I came through as insulting, that wasn't my aim. Because, you see - everything I wrote therein is true and has been tested through years/thousands of matches and every other long-time veteran will tell you pretty much the same. So when I tell you the cold truth straight, without the sugar-coating, it's for your own good, not because I'd want to be rude and a troll. Therefore I advise you to stop acting like a special snowflake, because online forums aren't exactly the safe space for participation medal crowd.

 

Block Quote

I'm talking ONLY about head on collisions.

 

Now I'm really dumbfounded. If you'd been talking about ramming in general, I'd have cut you some slack for being a newbie. But you mean that you're pretty much crying about screwing up head-ons and getting creamed in the process? Come on. Seriously - COME ON.

 

Yeah, this is very much a case of L2P, like it or not.

 



jakub_czyli_ja #7 Posted 26 November 2017 - 09:28 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 5696 battles
  • 9,469
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postomglaserspewpew, on 26 November 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

Jeff thinks people around here are smoking too much pot, which messes with their brain. After reading your post, Jakub, I'm inclined to agree. :unsure:

 

Giving frags for ramming or not was always beside the point. A ram that killed someone had a profound and irreversible impact on the match. Whether or not someone was awarded a frag or not was a pointless argument. If you could win a match by ramming, who the hell cared if you got a frag or not??

Winning a battle by ramming is awarded by a win. Ramming someone at the beginning of a battle means nothing except that you can't fight planes in any other way.

Block Quote

In over a dozen thousand matches played, I was never rammed if I didn't wanted to be. You have strange problems.

Head on ramming is a WoWP version of prosoner dillema, each plane has a choice:

1. head on ram - then, 100% frag, after ramming mechanic adjust - frag/loss say 50/50

2. try to evade - most probably you'll end up with a plane on your tail - loss more possible than a win, especially when you suck.

 

So ram becomes a choice, and the only factor for ramming.

 

 



omglaserspewpew #8 Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2097 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 26 November 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Head on ramming is a WoWP version of prosoner dillema, each plane has a choice:

1. head on ram - then, 100% frag, after ramming mechanic adjust - frag/loss say 50/50

2. try to evade - most probably you'll end up with a plane on your tail - loss more possible than a win, especially when you suck.

 

So ram becomes a choice, and the only factor for ramming.

 

 

 

Was. Is not anymore, because the worse-maneuverable plane which has no inherent defense against ramming itself, is also usually the victor of a ram due to higher HP pool and armor.

 

That's why we all agreed that the previous ramming mechanics were crap.



Sgt_Mikaelus #9 Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:10 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-05-2017

View Postomglaserspewpew, on 26 November 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

I of course admit that my answer was as blunt as it can get. Sorry if I came through as insulting, that wasn't my aim. Because, you see - everything I wrote therein is true and has been tested through years/thousands of matches and every other long-time veteran will tell you pretty much the same. So when I tell you the cold truth straight, without the sugar-coating, it's for your own good, not because I'd want to be rude and a troll. Therefore I advise you to stop acting like a special snowflake, because online forums aren't exactly the safe space for participation medal crowd.

 

 

Now I'm really dumbfounded. If you'd been talking about ramming in general, I'd have cut you some slack for being a newbie. But you mean that you're pretty much crying about screwing up head-ons and getting creamed in the process? Come on. Seriously - COME ON.

 

Yeah, this is very much a case of L2P, like it or not.

 

 

When I first started reading this reply I thought that I had misjudged you. Unfortunately, your ways remain the same.

 

1. Your being an asshat by choice doesn't make me a special snoflake. I didn't ask for special treatment, I asked for people to at least try pretending that they have successfully passed their teens when we are in an area meant for debate. Which is what the forums are supposed to be for, in case you haven't heard.

 

2. Who is crying? I didn't say it's a constant problem, I didn't say it damages my gameplay experience. It's an observation and something that I think that doesn't make much sense. If it's "tested" as you say, and that's a feature that the developers want in their game in this particular way, then fine by me. Although with such manners, your credibility also suffers.

 

Feedback is the observations and comments of the users towards the creators of a certain product. I try to keep mine detailed and constructive. It might or might not be taken into consideration but that's not my call and certainly not yours. If you don't like it, tough luck.

 

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 26 November 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Head on ramming is a WoWP version of prosoner dillema, each plane has a choice:

1. head on ram - then, 100% frag, after ramming mechanic adjust - frag/loss say 50/50

2. try to evade - most probably you'll end up with a plane on your tail - loss more possible than a win, especially when you suck.

 

So ram becomes a choice, and the only factor for ramming.

 

 

 

At least someone gets why I brought it up.



jakub_czyli_ja #10 Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:20 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 5696 battles
  • 9,469
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postomglaserspewpew, on 26 November 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

Was. Is not anymore, because the worse-maneuverable plane which has no inherent defense against ramming itself, is also usually the victor of a ram due to higher HP pool and armor.

Still, either you train ramming and find how to ram and survive, or go random 50/50. Si it is still the case.

Block Quote

 That's why we all agreed that the previous ramming mechanics were crap.

I didn't agree.

I find previous ramming mechanics better, because is aligned with common sense.

And I constantly claim that the root of all evil lies in frag for ram rule.

 

And how great is to trade off common sense and enraging rammed players to please suicidal project pigeon rammers with a frag some of us had an occasion to observe, and all of us have an occasion to observe again, as new wave of players learns how to go for a frag and gets mad about being rammed.



omglaserspewpew #11 Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:25 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2097 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

@OP

 

So, let's see.

 

Did I openly insult you? No, I did not.

 

I did call you, I quote: "responsible for ramming" and potentially in need of "learning to fly". After that, I called you a "special snowflake" when you acted overly sensitive.

 

I also didn't troll you or said anything that isn't true.

 

But yes, I'm the one still needs to "successfully pass their teens". Yup. Definitely.

 

You know, your second reply enforces my conclusion that you're exactly an overly entitled and sensitive special snowflake as I first suspected. Have fun circle-jerking with more "sensitive" people and come to me again when you actually want good answers and facts. Toodloo.

 

Block Quote

Still, either you train ramming and find how to ram and survive ...

 

Which is exactly what you should do.

 


Edited by omglaserspewpew, 26 November 2017 - 10:27 PM.


Sgt_Mikaelus #12 Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:33 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-05-2017

Look who decided to tone down when his previous answer didn't get him anywhere...

 

Well, I'm pretty happy stating what I see, and considering that you're the only one trying to shut the others down because "you said so" instead of providing facts, I'm still inclined to continue with my view. As for "coming to you again when I actually want a good answer", that's not going to happen, because I don't see any good answers coming.

 

Don't break your keyboard on the way out.



jakub_czyli_ja #13 Posted 27 November 2017 - 07:15 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 5696 battles
  • 9,469
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Because there is no good answer.

 

From the perspective of years that passed since WoWP 1.0 was released, people from WG/Persha won't change their minds and mindsets about ramming. Because no, and the situation is 'take it or leave it', exactly as in 1.x.

And in 1.x most people left.

And since things that made people leaving in 1.x are still present in 2.x, what can be the outcome?



Dhilys #14 Posted 27 November 2017 - 10:09 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 6017 battles
  • 98
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-02-2017

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 27 November 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

Because there is no good answer.

 

From the perspective of years that passed since WoWP 1.0 was released, people from WG/Persha won't change their minds and mindsets about ramming. Because no, and the situation is 'take it or leave it', exactly as in 1.x.

And in 1.x most people left.

And since things that made people leaving in 1.x are still present in 2.x, what can be the outcome?

 

i would like a harder penalty for ramming like lock on consumables or 10 sec of crit. dmg on plane parts. now ramming for the attacker is a no brainer win. there should be at least some thinking involved.

Sgt_Mikaelus #15 Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-05-2017

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 27 November 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

Because there is no good answer.

 

From the perspective of years that passed since WoWP 1.0 was released, people from WG/Persha won't change their minds and mindsets about ramming. Because no, and the situation is 'take it or leave it', exactly as in 1.x.

And in 1.x most people left.

And since things that made people leaving in 1.x are still present in 2.x, what can be the outcome?

 

Yes, I'm not arguing with that. It's a difficult issue to address. I still believe it should be punishing for everyone involved since it's not really the smartest thing to do in a plane if you intend to keep on flying it.

 

However, I'm not the one making the game and I haven't tested the balance of what I'm suggesting. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work... that doesn't make it make more sense though.



anonym_JSqwZct68BEw #16 Posted 27 November 2017 - 01:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 183
  • Member since:
    06-01-2019

Is there still a need for surviving a collision in a game with respawn? In a game without respawn I would say yes because a game could end too quick with ramming.

 

It's funny to think that you can survive a collision mid-air in an airplane. But in WOWs 2 ships that ram each other have a very high chance of exploding (all depends on the health of the ships). Both situations are ridiculous. 


Edited by Milckenbom, 27 November 2017 - 01:04 PM.


Keulz #17 Posted 27 November 2017 - 02:03 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1754 battles
  • 858
  • [CPC] CPC
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
post was lost by this stupid forum, don't want to type it all again. [edited]it

Edited by Keulz, 27 November 2017 - 02:05 PM.


Senjougahara #18 Posted 27 November 2017 - 05:01 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3168 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

The game has a special notification for ramming, so devs clearly see it as part of the game and a legitimate tactic in certain situations; As long as people aren't exploiting the system, like in the instance of a 1HP fighter taking out a full HP +1 tier heavy fighter way back when, I doubt they care if people are doing it or not. And heavier beats lighter is just the logical (though not realistic) way to go about it, and it's consistent with other WG titles (none of them implement ramming in an accurate way). The current model isn't perfect, but it's an arcade game so deal with it, they just need a system that isn't easily exploited.



CheefCoach #19 Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,255
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Number of HP are considered in outcome of raming encounters, so don't worry about 1 HP planes. 
https://stats-sig.eu/wowp/CheefCoach/ussr/xs/en/sig.png





Also tagged with Feedback, Physics, Combat

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users