CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
394
   |
Posted - 2015.01.16 00:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
 Let me say, for a thread-subject I would normally turn my back on, the posts here (even the ones I disagree with) are well worded, and are darned intelligent points of view. Kudos to EVERY single person who posted here!
I learned from a documentary that, in WWII Battle of Britain, pilots would be debriefed after each combat engagement once they returned to the home airfield. Now these are "pilots", so you can't imagine how egotistic and eager their competitive spirits are--and in a aerial fight among 15 planes, you can only imagine how wild/frantic/non-linear events must be.
So Alfie would correctly report that he put a bucket of rounds into the yellow-nose plane---and Ronald correctly reported he shot the tail surface off that same plane--and Archibald put a quick burst of bullets into the engine of that same plane and saw the engine explode. All three pilots saw that yellow-nose enemy eventually spiral and crash.
Of course each pilot expects to get a enemy sticker painted on the side of his cockpit--each pilot GOT the kill, and it's hard to say the last pilot to shoot could have succeeded without the contribution of "the other two pilots".
GǪBut Fighter Command's solution was to give each pilot a "third" of a Kill. WHA?!!
Fighter Command's interest was not with WHO shoot down, just that the enemy fighter got shot down so he can't stop our side from winning the air war. Yes, it was useful to say "Alfie is our top ace with 60 Kills to his credit", because it helped keep the country inspired and helps recruitmentGǪ but the War is won by neutralizing as many of the enemy from opposing our side, not by counting up WHO from our side neutralized the most enemies.
At first I thought, woah! 1/3-Kill? That's nonsense--just give one pilot the credit, and the other two should be pro enough to suck it up. GǪThen I thought, where was my brain? Of course Fighter Command's point of view makes sense. Not trying to be super-precise about which pilot gets the "official" kill each time was their way of forcing the best peace among cocky pilots.
I wouldn't want the current Kill-credit mechanic to be changed at all. 
We come from Playstation gaming, arguably some of the most blazing-frantic and least-teamlike 'team-shooter' titles of any format. When you put a gun in our hands, no player is going to feel more impulsively competitive and than a PS player on her console! Rock ON!
But the devs of Dust are repeatedly showing us that, even though the game HAS a "leader board" and gives honor to top-tier gunmen, a Dust War is won by neutralizing the enemy team from opposing our hack-ownership of the map, not by WHO neutralized the most enemies.
Paul sees Celesta wearing a pro to-suit-n-proto-hmg, and Paul knows that no ones got a chance of killing Celesta unless Paul steps out and sacrifices himself to hose her with rounds and weaken her HP.
Alan sees Paul commit point-blank suicide against Celesta, and unloads his militia-rail on her from a safe position.
Rockson had a proto-rifle, and empties his gun on Celesta from behind, but his clip ran out of bullets just before Alan's militia ammo, so Alan gets the 50+Kill, and Rockson and Paul get 25+assists.
Should Paul feel happy that, at least this is a game that notifies him on-screen that his intentional sacrifice paid of and rewards him for his contribution?
Should Rockson get the 50+Kill credit since they probably reduced the most of Celesta's EHP (Alan's gun is too weak to take on Celesta alone).
If Alan had fired on Celesta 2 seconds AFTER Paul made his sacrifice, should Paul NOT get any 25+ credit at all? (Would Alan and Rockson even succeeded if it weren't for Paul's gutsy warrior-act?)
 These are really tough questions to answer. I think I'm grateful that CCP didn't try to address the issue, and instead just implemented a mechanic that forces an"official" peace among incredibly competitive players.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|