HO bubble

[Zazen13]

I have a few thoughts on this. Let me start by saying I hate accepting/going for the pure HO in any situation except vs. a 262/163. Anytime I get Ho'd I consider it my own fault and it's almost invariably by some guy with 13 kills in 300 hops and a 2% hit %, so I know he could not have killed me any other way. That being said HO's are a real problem, while I realize AW is dead it did have a few things right imho. One of those is the lessening of the HO effect.

The reason this is important is because in real life, HO's were considered a very, very dangerous move, yes they were done, but not in the same fashion they are in a game. Planes in real life did not see each other 3k away nose right at each other guns a blazing until one/both of them died or collided, but that happens all the time in AH. The possibility of a very real death in a very risky manuever was enough to dissuade most WW2 pilots from going for the HO if any other viable option was available to them. In a game, however, where the worst possible thing that can happen is you get a fresh plane the HO takes on an entirely 'un-realistic' appeal.

So, this is typcial of how it plays out in the game. I'll use Shane as an example because I know he won't mind. Shane will be the first to tell you he has no problems going for the HO. Shane and you are co-alt he noses into you, you see his 3 cannon La7 is going to attempt to HO. You have a choice, A) accept the invitation or B) attempt to evade the HO. Well, Shane knows if you accept the HO you are probably a weaker pilot who is turning down the chance to possibly outmanuever an La7, against a weaker player he would be willing to take the chance his aim is superior on the HO. If you do not go for the HO he knows you are likely a better player who in attempting to avoid the HO will have to give up critical E and/or angle in what is otherwise a co-alt/co-E fight.

So, even better players, Shane is just my example, there's many others that use the threat of the HO for the intimidation factor to gain an advantage in a fight. Yes, of course you can attempt to evade, against all but superior marksmen that will probably allow you to avoid the initial merge HO shot, but in doing so you have given the would-be HO'er a critical advantage in the fight depending on relative skill and/or plane match-ups which could be the deciding factor.

The other problem has been stated is in regard to newer players. They can gain some measure of immediate success by simply HO'ing everything they possibly can and running from anything else. It doesn't take any skill or talent, and they occassionally get to land kills and see their name in lights. This gives them little impetus do do anything else, they never become better at anything except HO'ing. The fear is, and I know a few people who are like this is, we breed a whole generation of 'professional HO artists'. That is people who started off HO'ing because it had a unique 'immediate gratification' quality in a game with an otherwise incredibly steep learning curve and just never put the time or effort into taking 'their' game to the next level.

In summary, it is my personal belief that 'artifically' making HO's as  unattractive an option in the game as they were in real life would make the fights in the game and the players far better in terms of quality.


Zazen

[J_A_B]

"Somewhere in the back of an AW players mind is the logic that says "I'm in a P51, he's in a N1K1 ... 6 50's v. 4 20mm's ... HO'ing would be bad for me" ... "

That's spot on.


The limited HO rule was an obviously contrived feature, but in the eyes of some it improved gameplay.  To dismiss AW as "arcadish" due to such features is rather snobbish as AH uses several equally "gamey" features (such as the fuel multiplier or ENY system in the MA).   AW was poorly-managed and outdated, but "arcade" it was not, not even in the RR arenas.  May I suggest a game like "Carrier Aces" for the SNES for those who want to experience a truly "arcade" WW2 flightsim.



"AW is gone, AW is dead, AW will not return"


Neither will the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they weren't good.

J_A_B

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Zazen13
If you do not go for the HO he knows you are likely a better player who in attempting to avoid the HO will have to give up critical E and/or angle in what is otherwise a co-alt/co-E fight.  

This is, bluntly, wrong.

It is the guy going for the HO that is giving up E and position.

[Krusty]

Zazen, you're assuming most newbies can HO properly. Most I see ram me in the process of the HO. Half can't hit squat. I got passed by a 110, a 109, a typh, and a spit all trying to HO me a week ago, not one hit me despite my steady flight (no evasives, steady level flight).

Instant gratification? What, that they died? That's not too gratifying for a newbie. That they wasted all that ammo firing from 1k out? Rtb ammo is not very gratifying either.

In fact, if you want to actually land HO shots without damage it requires intermediate skills. At that point the pilot is making a decision, not simply doing the only thing he/she knows to do.

Besides, most newbies want to turn, and take spits. Spits ain't the best for HOs, in general.

So your claim that only newbies will HO is not supported by the requirements to successfully complete a HO attack.

THEN you also add to the fact that HOs are rarely ever 1-way. Usually both planes sustain major damage. It's not an effective tactic, in my book. I still do it, because sometimes any tactic is better than no tactic. When I do it, however, I realize the risks and don't want any cheesy has-been code from a has-been game preventing me from doing it.

Seems that most WB/AH folks don't want this, and that only a few AW piners miss it. None of y'all stop and thought "Hrm... maybe the reason AW HOs were such a problem was the laser beam weapons..."

Which... lemme check -- yep! .... we don't have those in AH! It's not even remotely comparable. So don't compare AH to AW anymore, it gets tiring

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Krusty

So your claim that only newbies will HO is not supported by the requirements to successfully complete a HO attack.

I never said ONLY noobs HO, I used Shane as an example of a 10+ year veteran who HOs. Many vets use the threat of the HO to gain an advantage.

Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Karnak
This is, bluntly, wrong.

It is the guy going for the HO that is giving up E and position.

Well, I disagree with you. The guy avoiding the HO either has to perform a lead turn a lateral or vertical rolling manuever or some other manuever that drastically changes his attitude relative to the Ho'er to spoil the shot. All but the lead turn gives up angle, and all of them give up E relative to a HO'er who just barrels straight at you until he either HO's you are realizes his shot is spoiled. He then counter-moves to you accordingly, saving E all the while, watching you, ready to translate that E into angle depending on which avoidance tactic you use giving him the critical initiative.

Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Krusty

Instant gratification? What, that they died? That's not too gratifying for a newbie. That they wasted all that ammo firing from 1k out? Rtb ammo is not very gratifying either.

If you have played the game a long time your idea of gratifying is distorted as is mine. I had the chance to watch my wife learn the game and got to re-live the 'newness' facor. For a noob, especially one in a fighter, gratification entails having some tangible effect on the enemy. The HO offers the best chance of this, and if they collide and take the enemy down in the process, more's the better, that is gratifying to them. The fact is if you have a steady hand and the target isn't moving you can HO/ram, any noob can do that, and if they can't at the outset, they quickly learn how from the plethora of others Ho'ing them.

Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Krusty


THEN you also add to the fact that HOs are rarely ever 1-way. Usually both planes sustain major damage. It's not an effective tactic, in my book. I still do it, because sometimes any tactic is better than no tactic. When I do it, however, I realize the risks and don't want any cheesy has-been code from a has-been game preventing me from doing it.

Seems that most WB/AH folks don't want this, and that only a few AW piners miss it. None of y'all stop and thought "Hrm... maybe the reason AW HOs were such a problem was the laser beam weapons..."

Which... lemme check -- yep! .... we don't have those in AH! It's not even remotely comparable. So don't compare AH to AW anymore, it gets tiring

When did I say the damage is one way? I appreciate that you like to HO, that is your choice. Answer me this though, would you be so eager to HO if you actually DIED?!? I think not, this is our problem with it. HO'ing has become an ENORMOUS part of the game, grotesquely disproportionate to the impact the tactic had in real air combat, conversely making other tactics and ACM manuevering generally far less important than they were in real air combat. That detracts seriously from AHs realism/immersion factor.

I never wanted to make this an AW vs. WB/AH thing but since you mentioned it I will say this. The quality of fights and player skill was far superior in AWFR than it is in AH, this is attributed almost entirely to people having to use ACM to fight in AWFR instead of copping out and using the HO in AH.

Zazen

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I never wanted to make this an AW vs. WB/AH thing but since you mentioned it I will say this. The quality of fights and player skill was far superior in AWFR than it is in AH, this is attributed almost entirely to people having to use ACM to fight in AWFR instead of copping out and using the HO in AH.

I disagree that you can attribute this almost entirely to the HO.  Ask any former WB player (where HOs were as they are in AH) what they feel about the general skill level back in the day versus AH now.  I'm guessing they'd come to the same conclusion as you despite the fact that HOs were always a fact of life for them in Warbirds.  

I'm guessing that the reasons you see such a low general skill level are 1) lower costs to access the game meaning a larger pool of players, and 2) a high turnover among new players.  If vets slowly leave the game and new players rarely stick around, you're going to find an arena filled with few vets and plenty of completely clueless players.  That's always a recipe for poor fights regardless of whether HTC enables HOs or not.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I disagree that you can attribute this almost entirely to the HO.  Ask any former WB player (where HOs were as they are in AH) what they feel about the general skill level back in the day versus AH now.  I'm guessing they'd come to the same conclusion as you despite the fact that HOs were always a fact of life for them in Warbirds.  

I'm guessing that the reasons you see such a low general skill level are 1) lower costs to access the game meaning a larger pool of players, and 2) a high turnover among new players.  If vets slowly leave the game and new players rarely stick around, you're going to find an arena filled with few vets and plenty of completely clueless players.  That's always a recipe for poor fights regardless of whether HTC enables HOs or not.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Possibly, without direct access to subscription data, I cannot substantiate that position, alot of people some assume are leaving are simply changing their names to regain anonymity. I know about 25 people who change their in-game name more than I change my underwear (monthly), so I am certain there are at least 3 times that many doing it I don't know or care about. I never played WBs so cannot speak of it, but in AWFR certainly we had the 'cream of the crop', RR had 90% of the noobs, so that could be a factor. Whether, HO's are symptomatic of a higher noob ratio or not doesn't change the fact that an over-abundance of HO'ing at the detriment to ACM manuevering has, in general, a deleterious affect on quality of gameplay experience in AH.

Zazen

[DoKGonZo]

As I see it, there's two choices. One is to put in something artificial to reduce the effectiveness of the HO. And the other is to remove some of the artificial aspects in the game(play) which make HO such a viable tactic.

I'm 99.99% sure HT won't put in a reamdomizer to reduce head-on effectiveness.

So lets look at the second option ...

What if you removed range numbers completely? Just put in a +/- to say if it's coming or going. That would pull gunnery in closer and make lining up a HO shot tougher - to HO you'd need to commit to it and wait for the enemy plane to get close enough to ID the type to know it was in range before firing - and that reduces the firing window a ton for the HO.

    -DoK

[Karnak]

Zazen13,

And the HOer's desperate, high G turn to try to get a gun solution on you as you avoid him doesn't waste gobs of energy?

Yeah right.

Further you can easily avoid most HOs without bleeding much, if any, E.


DoKGonZo,

I agree about the range numbers.  I'd like to see them removed as well.  Sadly, I don't think it'll happen.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zazen13
Whether, HO's are symptomatic of a higher noob ratio or not doesn't change the fact that an over-abundance of HO'ing at the detriment to ACM manuevering has, in general, a deleterious affect on quality of gameplay experience in AH.

I think the emphasis on HOs is a bit of straw man.  If the quality of the gameplay in AH has gone down, it's because players prefer to follow the path of least resistence.  That includes timid flying, not pressing the fight, hording, picking, vulching, whatever.  HOs might fall into that category as well, but they are not exclusive to it.  They would be a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Shane]

Well, here's my personal ethos on a HO....

Of course I'll always try and get my nose pointed at what i assess to be the most serious threat.

I *will* deliberately attempt a HO when I spot a cherrypicker/ganger coming in on me while I am already engaged, even if that means giving up a chance at the original baddy.

I will also deliberately let loose a HO on one of them extend 5k and reverse weenies since that's about the only shot I'll get. A joust, if you will, the HO in the purest sense that we are talking about.

I'll also risk a HO against someone who is taking way too long to BNZ me too timidly. While I can eventually get him to run, if not kill him, the amount of time it takes gives gangers/cherrypickers time to arrive.

In a swirling furball, I'll shoot at whatever badguy crosses my gunsights at whatever angle.

In a 1 v 1 I won't generally go for the joust - i make exceptions for (occasioanlly) zekes and jugs and (always) perk planes.

in a 1 vs 2-3 that started together, I won't generally try and joust, but front quarter shots do happen.

Scissors are one of my lifeblood ACM, along with immelmanns and yo-yo's.

The important distinction tho' is while a HO is a valid shot no matter the circumstances, it's the fact that I am capable of much more than mere jousting that makes the distinction between me and the average weenie.  well, that and my arroga.. err confidence.


edit:  HOs stopped bothering me long ago. It's more distressing to me seeing the general lack of even an attempt at some sort of ACM - that path of least resistence levi spoke of.  It's slightly more distressing to see so many "so-called vets" after all their time in this game, *still* take that path of least resistence.

[Krusty]

Range numbers are necessary. You look at a cessna flying over your house at a few thousand feet and you can CLEARLY make out the details of it. More so on a bright and sunny day (which AH has in spades). Now look at something 2-3k away in AH [EDIT: Even 1k is barely more than a couple of pixels], it's a freaking 1-pixel dot. No comparison. Nor will there EVER be a comparison between eyesight and monitor resolution.

Icons and range is necessary to overcome the shortcomings of the game engine and the technology we all have available.