New standard for kills

[CPT Crunch]

No more vulching counted as a air kill, it's a ground kill and shall not be counted against the guy helpless on the ground.  That will eliminate loads of malarkey and bad blood.  An air kill must be rightfully earned with a combatant who is wheels up, just like the real deal.

No more MIA or KIA losing your kills earned, they didn't do it in real life, you earned the score, you kept it even if you ended up a POW for years or posthumous.  Credit still goes to the team board.  A real time stats total on each team, sum of the teams efforts.  Add up all the players score board totals on a bottom line, total kills, air and ground by category as the mission plays.     

And please no radar information telling the exact type or class and whether its carrying payload or not, and no exact altitude, numbers, and vector information, this isn't suppose to be 21st century AWAC's.  We should have the ability to set up ambushes and surprises exploiting radar.             

Edited March 28, 2024 by CPT Crunch

[ZachariasX]

[CPT Crunch]

Oh, I'm all for vulching to the maximum, but it's not an air kill, no matter how one wants to dress it up.  Certainly not worthy of the same points equivalent to an air kill.  Lot's of bad blood can be avoided and it won't be an issue, and if you want to diminish repeat spawners wasting airframes, don't know why you would, set a time out on that field once they get vulched twice. 

Do you really want to award ten or more air kills all at once with a single boat hit, that would spark complete mayhem, I don't want to be in a server where that kind of repeated double or triple ace making nonsense ruins it.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, CPT Crunch said:

but it's not an air kill

It would be great if air kills only get awarded for flying aircraft. Foe example, there could be a query for wheels touching the ground to qualify for not being airborne. The devil is then in the details on how to handle aircraft that landed wheels up etc.

[Trooper117]

7 hours ago, CPT Crunch said:

but it's not an air kill

If its wheels have left the ground, it's an air kill... 

[Mysticpuma]

So you take off from your Carrier or base, end up doing this, RTB and you record '0'?

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

RTB and you record '0'?

Clostermann differentated between air kills and ground kills:

The ground kills he got confirmed are just the white outlines of the crosses. Ground kills for sure counted, but differently. Air kills are black crosses with white outlines.

The idea here is more to reduce the incentive to grief other players. Like if a player is only less than 2 seconds from takeoff, you cannot break his streak by shooting him. Just as an arbitary example.

[Mysticpuma]

58 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Clostermann differentated between air kills and ground kills:

The ground kills he got confirmed are just the white outlines of the crosses. Ground kills for sure counted, but differently. Air kills are black crosses with white outlines.

The idea here is more to reduce the incentive to grief other players. Like if a player is only less than 2 seconds from takeoff, you cannot break his streak by shooting him. Just as an arbitary example.

Maybe Anti-aircraft weaponry at bases needs to increase in accuracy the more you stay in the area. You may get a kill on the ground (or just on wheels off) but if you stay and vulch, you are unlikely to survive as the AA will actively hunt you down if you persist in the area for more than 30-60 seconds?

Edited February 15 by Mysticpuma

[ZachariasX]

12 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Maybe Anti-aircraft weaponry at bases needs to increase in accuracy the more you stay in the area. You may get a kill on the ground (or just on wheels off) but if you stay and vulch, you are unlikely to survive as the AA will actively hunt you down if you persist in the area for more than 30-60 seconds?

I have thought about that, but I can see that only in MP scenarios that are artificially tilted for a level playing field to make for a good game.

If you have historic missions, then there might well be occasions where pilots and planes are exposed to an unhealthy degree. And I think then that should be like that in the game as well.

[CPT Crunch]

I don't have a problem with shooting or bombing them on the ground, but it can't be classified as an air kill since one guy never even logged a sortie.  A sortie only begins on wheels up and lasts until wheels down.  How can one possibly say they scored an air kill when no sortie ever took place or was ever officially logged?  The name of the pilot you killed shouldn't be known or placed in your victory list or score board.  He's KIA is the same as any infantry or ground support personnel, no one but the mortician unit keeps score on those.

In some current games the air scores are badly skewed because of this, ground and ground bot plane kills shouldn't be even be scored in the same column.  If these are suppose to be accurate simulations, why can't actual records and recording processes be simulated, are they not known by now?  I'm all for a fun game but this is an area that can be improved upon.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ground attack "kills", be it aircraft, vehicles, infrastructure or ground units need to be properly awarded though.  There needs to be an incentive to be an attacker, and not just a glory boy online ace doing very little to advance the winning of the campaign or map mission.

[BlackCatActual]

I think the simpler solution here is to have strong but not impossible anti-aircraft fire that will vaporize any solo attempts at vulching a field or carrier. Any attacks on a field or carrier need to be done by a large enough group or get deleted.

I don't think it should be easy at all to get past the aaa and the protective fighters patrolling around carriers.

What I would like to see, however, is a kill being awarded to the nearest enemy plane should a pilot decide to eject (out of an undamaged aircraft), disconnect, or crash their plane before taking a hit.

This will discourage the "If I'm going to die, I can at least deny you a kill." mentality that, although not prevalent, exists.

Edited April 2 by BlackCatActual

[Boo]

I think double point per second need to be awarded to all SBD crew from the time of engine start to their ultimate demise 5 minutes later. 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, Boo said:

I think double point per second need to be awarded to all SBD crew from the time of engine start to their ultimate demise 5 minutes later. 

Quadruple points then for Vindicators.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The TBD crews should get automatic maximum points just for starting the engine.

[Lusekofte]

Being vulched is just a sign of why server missions fail. Going into a PvP server and get constantly vulched you are in a server with people only want dogfights and no cooperation and your team fail to protect Homebase. A very common fail spread around all type of combat games. They simply not worth being in. 

[PixelHunter]

On 4/5/2025 at 12:28 PM, Lusekofte said:

Being vulched is just a sign of why server missions fail. Going into a PvP server and get constantly vulched you are in a server with people only want dogfights and no cooperation and your team fail to protect Homebase. A very common fail spread around all type of combat games. They simply not worth being in. 

that's true, but I feel there's a sub-set of people who play all types of mil-sim game who have more or less learned that in real life the objective is to take and hold ground, but in simulations they can just use cheesy tactics to rack up kills. So you get games like IL2 and Arma where there's always a few players camping spawn points "denying the enemy" or whatever when it's really just spawn camping. I think the trick here is finding ways to create disincentives this behavior while not breaking immersion because these individuals will constantly being attempting this. It gets exhausting constantly having the manage spawn campers. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

On 4/3/2025 at 5:39 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

The TBD crews should get automatic maximum points just for starting the engine.

I will be one of these guys unless there is a TBF-1C. I used to fly both of these in IL246. Nothing like being 50ft off the water at full throttle punching your way through flak and guns. It's even more statisfying if you somehow manage to get your torp off.

[Lusekofte]

On 5/22/2025 at 9:51 PM, SOLIDKREATE said:

I will be one of these guys unless there is a TBF-1C. I used to fly both of these in IL246. Nothing like being 50ft off the water at full throttle punching your way through flak and guns. It's even more statisfying if you somehow manage to get your torp off.

Me too, it is one of those planes you know your not return in. The undercarriage could just be blown off. Question is when it end. 
I am not even getting frustrated about it