Please stop this HO thing!

[Dinger]

 

This whole debate is pointless. Two people that know they are going to die are arguing over who gets the kill.

Were this the point, I'd agree with you that it is a non-issue.  But it ain't.  The fact is, like it or no, some folks do collect kills, and the current scoring system encourages suicidal behavior, such as HOs, staying in your cockpit, and the like.
Here's the point: The current system is both inaccurate and encourages undesirable behavior.
Arguing "well you should be avoiding HOs anyway" is as patronizing as it is idiotic.
Take the argument that jury awards in civil suits were so out of hand that people were deliberately doing stupid things just so they could sue somebody, and therefore our tort law should be revisited.  In this case, the analogous response to yours above is "Well, you shouldn't be starting frivolous lawsuits, now should you?"
If something's broken, we'd like to see it fixed, particularly if it has an effect on gameplay.

In short, it ain't a slam on HTC.  We have confidence that they will fix known problems.
It ain't bickering by folks who are gonna die.  Frankly, I don't care about dying.  Sometimes I play the "Strat game", which involves all sorts of dweebish behavior; sometimes I play to have great sorties, thrilling dogfights and the like.  I don't give a damn about K/D, and I eat for lunch the idiots who go for the HO when they have plenty of options.
Only an idiot would believe this was a defense of the HO, or a whine by folks who take the HO all the time and feel robbed of kills.

But perhaps there'd be a lot less idiots out there if the scoring were more appropriate.
How about if nobody gets a kill on a mutual-death HO?

(and vlkn.  After you remove that iron leg from your behind, we invite you to repeat your question   )

[Lampo]

I agree with gatt

lampo

[Wanker]

I think the scoring needs to change, too. Not that I pay too much attention to my score, mind you, but there's one scenario where it really bugs me:

1. I get on opponents six(skillfully avoiding his HO technique)

2. I blow his wing off, he rides his ship to the ground(which is going to take a while)

3. A countrymate of my victim bounces me while I'm fixatedly tearing apart my victim above. My plane blows up, I die.

Result: His buddy gets the kill for me, but I get no credit for the guy who is plummeting to the ground in a plane without a wing.

Maybe this is some kind of weird take off of the old "If a tree falls down in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any sound?"

Did I shoot down my victim or not? The answer seems pretty simple to me. Regardless of what happens to me after the fact, I should still be credited the kill.

------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"

[eskimo]

It seems that most of the complaints against HO's come frome experienced/good pilots.  It makes sence that if you are forced into situation where you have the tactical advantage, or are at least at equal energy states, and you are a good pilot (let's say with a kill/death ratio of over 2 to 1), then you will probably not like any event that makes the playing field more equal, because if both pilots were to limit themselves to traditional "on 6" ACM's then you would likely end up with the kill.  To a newbie (or an oldie who flies like a newbie   ), however, if you have a kill to death ratio of say 1 to 10, whenever you enter a fight you can expect to die most of the time.  So why wouldn't you want to enter a situation where you may stand a 25 to 50% chance of getting a kill, even if you are likely to die?  If the opponent tries to evade the HO you may at least get a high angle deflection shot on him, or he may even turn enough to put you on his 6!

If I had to fight someone like Hristo 1 v 1, I would not pass up a chance to go head-on because it would make the difference in our skill abilities less significant.  I would probably go from a 10% chance of winning to a 30% chance.

Some planes seem to be built for HO's.  On the rare occasion that I fly the 190, I intentionally look for HO's.  I know that I will stand a great chance of winning a HO, and a poor chance of winning a traditional ACM fight.  Against buffs, HO's are the way to go in this bird.  I once saw a B-17 lose it's wing at d800 when I was making a head on pass.  

In a B-26, on the other hand, I often resort to HO's.  I have my best kill ratio (3.5 to 1) in the B-26.  Much of it is due to forcing a guy into a HO when he isn't prepared for one.

Bottom line is, I think that HO's have a place in this game.  I can also attest that there are many skilled pilot out there who can effectivly evade a HO and can even use the attempt to get on the HOer's 6.

eskimo

[This message has been edited by eskimo (edited 04-03-2000).]

[AKSeaWulfe]

***EDITS AND DELETES A BUNCH OF squeakY NONSENSE*** I agree with Gatt, the scoring needs to be fixed as far as living(ie: bailing or surviving) and dying(ie: blowing up or crashing). However, as I told him in the MA earlier today, I still think this will encourage HOs.. perhaps even more so. Except now pilots will bail the second they see a wing come off the other dude. So really I think there is no away around this nonsense other than doing your best to avoid them.
S! Gatt
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+

[This message has been edited by AKSeaWulfe (edited 04-03-2000).]

[AKDejaVu]

Sigh...

I remember when this topic was first brought up in Warbirds.  It was the other side of the coin.  Basically, HOs were bad in the arena because people figured it was a good way to stay close to 1:1 in K/D and even better if you perfected it.  Basically... if you were a good aim you were guaranteed a kill.  If the other pilot was a bad aim, you might even live.

Now.. as for the rambling:

 

The current system is both inaccurate and encourages undesirable behavior.

The score system doesn't encourage this behavior.  People will perform HO attacks regardless of the scoring system.  Look at AW and the HO shield.  It made it VERY difficult to get an HO kill, yet people would still fly right into(through) each other with guns blazing.  When you are only concerned with pointing your nose at the enemy and not with where his nose is pointing this will happen.  A large number of the pilots in the arena are still working on the first part.  The second will come later.

 

Arguing "well you should be avoiding HOs anyway" is as patronizing as it is idiotic.

1. I never said "you should be avoiding them anyways".
2. Patronizing is saying "well just don't HO then" (just say no)
3. Suggesting to "figure better ways to avoid a HO" means that some things work BETTER than others.  It doesn't mean that HOs are completely avoidable and it is your duty to find out how.  I will say this... I've flown away more times when I've tried to avoid a HO than when I didn't... even though the other plane went down just as often regardless.

 

If something's broken, we'd like to see it fixed, particularly if it has an effect on gameplay.

All you need is a system that actually makes the pilot fear for his life and you will solve this problem instantly.  Oh.. guess what... even with that system people will still take HO shots.

There seems to be some assumtion that when two pilots killed each other in real life, the kills were awarded apropriately.  I wonder how often this was the case?  How often would someone be awarded a kill without guncam footage and how accurate were the eye-witness accounts?  The computer age as exposed us to near flawless accounting of actions... maybe its just a question of how accurate being flawless is.

So.. once again... if HOs really bother you, then do your damndest to avoid them.  Not saying you will always be successful, but at least you will have made an effort.  Its not everyone elses job to rid the world of the vile HO.

BTW.. if you want to see me go off on HO'ing... fly Knight and HO a target that has another Knight on his 6.  I don't think the game should be responsible for promoting/discouraging HOs.  Common sense and some kind of realization of strategy should be doing this.  If people don't feel they need to get these points across then fine... just don't complain about the results.

AKDejaVu

[Kieren]

In the end, there are those that couldn't care less about score (really!). They would however give their left testical for a kill, and if that means HO, that is perfectly acceptable.

Would scoring change HO? Maybe, maybe not. It might affect the crowd that is concerned with score, but I tend to believe the bulk that practice this tactic don't care a whit about the score.

Would it make the rest of us feel better to at least know we saw our name in lights for killing the bugger and living? Absolutely! This is the only way I care about it. I agree with funked, rather silly for me to be freefalling and have the guy who just rode his plane to a dirt nap get credit over the buffer.

Even at that, it is only a minor irritation to me.  

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 04-03-2000).]

[gatt]

AKSeaWulfe,
I understand that my C.205's oil/coolant on your windscreen calms you down ...  

To hell with all HO dweebs who get kills flying a destroyed a/c.

[Pavel]

If two pilots destroy(et.al) one another in a head-on, what's wrong with neither getting a kill?  Might be a little difficult to implement algorithm-wise, but seems to me that it would discourage the cheap-kill-seeking-head-on-dweeb while not discouraging the Hey!-I-gotta-protect-my-bomber-team-player.

[Fatty]

I wouldn't mind seeing you have to live for X seconds before the kill is credited (for the credit to neither scenario above), but giving credit to both on mutual destruction, well, is taking what little discouragement we have in there out.

------------------
Fatty
FAT DRUNK BASTARDS

[gatt]

Yes, actually you are right. Better if no one gets the kill. Not an easy feature to implement, tho ....

[Camel]

Yes, I agree no one should get the kill, but like its been said, probably impossible to do.

With all that is going through a guys head during a fight, I'd rather not add, "Hell, I'll just give up, and go HO, cause I atleast Ill get a kill". As it stands now getting the kill message in a HO is the "gamble". Which I feel is the best solution. Ho's will never go away, but this system of possibly not getting the kill message might make you think twice.

I also agree that they guy that rides his plane all the way down verse the bailer is f'ed up, but not unique to HO's.

[This message has been edited by Camel (edited 04-03-2000).]

[Jase]

HO's suck.  Nuff said.

------------------
+Jase ^Nomads^ AH
Fly-Nomadic
"To Everything Turn..Turn..Turn"

[Dinger]

I can't resist a good couple of logical flaws here:

First, HOs will always exist. I never claimed that they wouldn't.
Crime will always exist. Does that mean that we should encourage it?

Second, "suggesting that we spend time finding better ways to avoid HOs", implies that we do take them, and this is what pisses us off.  In addition, it is idiotic, because the complaint is not some puerile "HOs suck", but rather that "this scoring feature has undesirable consequences".  Really, discussing the merits of HOs is beside the point.

Third, I will on occasion take HOs.  If I'm in a dweeby ("strat") mood, I'll play according to the "vulch and be vulched" MA mindset.  I may take off from a disadvantaged (=vulched) field, where an HO is a sound strategic move (if dubious on the tactical and ACM scale): you make the other guy commute from his field, while you restart in the same area.  But in such a case, I don't give a hoot about scoring.  If I'm playing to survive, I won't do such idiocy.
But all this is beside the point.  A scoring system should not reward people who decide to stay in their cockpits rather than bail out.

[AKDejaVu]

 

Second, "suggesting that we spend time finding better ways to avoid HOs", implies that we do take them, and this is what pisses us off.

That's BS.  Everyone gets in an HO occasionally.  Some get in them more often.  Not saying you are in either category.  Anyone that gets into an HO did it for one of two reasons.  Either they chose to go for the HO or they were unable to avoid it.  Working towards minimizing participation in either category is very doable.

 

In addition, it is idiotic, because the complaint is not some puerile "HOs suck", but rather that "this scoring feature has undesirable consequences".

Ah.. this is great.  I must say the "idiot" sword is weilded quite frequently by you.  It has a tendancy to make it dull.  You really should work on sharpening it up.

What is truly "Idiotic" is to complain about the current system without providing any way to correct it.

1) Nobody is awarded the kill.  If a pilot manages to shoot someone down in a HO... one of two things happen... either you both go down in wich no kills are credited (no harm no foul) or you get the kill and survive.

2) Both pilots are awarded kills.  This is great.  Guarantee a kill for pilots that have decent aim in an HO.. both pilots as long as they have decent aim.  Once again... the percentages say that you could have above a 1:1 k/d ratio if you had a 15% hit percentage and practiced this extensively.

3) The current system.  Nobody really knows what will happen in an HO.  If the other pilot scores a pilot kill.. he gets the kill.  If the other pilot loses a wing but manages to hold it together longer.. he gets the kill.

what you claim is a "reward" is also a double edged sword.  If two pilots HO each other and take off one wing apeice... the both start heading downward.  Who gets the kill?  The pilot that could hold the plane together longer without augering into the ground.  Even after the HO.. you are still competing with the other pilot.  No more "I shot your wing off right before I bailed.. so I get the kill hahahaha".  You still have to work for it.

The scoring system rewards more points (to total points) based on wether you bail or ditch.  This means that in an HO... you can still ride the plane down... just bail before you hit.  Once again... you are gambling that you will have to bail last.

There simply is no solution to the HO "scoring" debate.  Maybe there should be a committe that sits and votes on wether a kill should be granted to a pilot.  They can have vulch rules, ho rules, afk rules, bingo rules and so forth.  This way, regardless of wether you are awarded the kill or not.. you can't complain because it was awarded by a committee of your peirs.

So.. once again.  If you don't like the way kills are asigned in an HO... avoid them more.  Yes it is possible.  Record your flights and watch them.  Think about this more.  "Idiocy" isn't saying to design better ways to avoid an HO... "idiocy" is figuring you already know every way to avoid them.

AKDejaVu


[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 04-04-2000).]