Aces High Magazine

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zazen13
The 'disadvantage fighter' is absolved of responsibility for negative outcomes while his ego gets to claim full credit for postive outcomes, a pretty spiffy situation to put yourself in.

Holy straw horses, Batman!  Many people dive into multiple enemies for the challenge, the adrenaline, and the fun.  Though you might find this hard to believe, for many of us the fun is the fight.  You've created an entirely false dichotomy that rationalizes your own flying style, and while I have no problems whatsoever with how you choose to fly, attempting to justify that type of flying as anything other than more fun for you appears silly, trite, and reaching.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Holy straw horses, Batman!  Many people dive into multiple enemies for the challenge, the adrenaline, and the fun.  Though you might find this hard to believe, for many of us the fun is the fight.  You've created an entirely false dichotomy that rationalizes your own flying style, and while I have no problems whatsoever with how you choose to fly, attempting to justify that type of flying as anything other than more fun for you appears silly, trite, and reaching.

-- Todd/Leviathn

I'm not justifying anything, I'm just offering a basic course in human psychology, particularly human adapation of circumstances to protect the ego from harm. Putting oneself in an almost impossible situation where it's almost a forgone conclusion you will not succeed provides a ready and convenient excuse for failure, saving ego. However, if by chance success is achieved the ego can relish in the accomplishment of a task that was all but impossible.

I am not proposing people who play 'anti-smart' are doing so deliberately, consciously to preserve their egos and not for fun, I am just stating the fact, whether they are consciously aware of it or not, flying 'anti-smart' does just that. It's human nature, nothing personal to those who choose to, for whatever conscious reason, fly 'anti-smart'.

Flying smart is just the opposite, the whole purpose of flying smart is to maintain initiative and advantage, exchanging that for kills that you return to base with. A smart flyer is supposed to get kills and land them, he is presumably orchestrating events such that this task is very possible and even likely. So, when he succeeds it is nothing more than doing what was expected. However, if the smart flyer doesn't succeed he effectively, "Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". There is no ego reward there, no opportunity to stroke ego or protect it. The smart flyer is actually the one, "Letting it all hang out" so to speak, his ego unprotected by excuses and no possibilty of becoming a self-proclaimed hero for a hop.


Zazen

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I'm not justifying anything, I'm just offering a basic course in human psychology, particularly human adapation of circumstances to protect the ego from harm.

[/b]

Adaptation, for instance, that forces one to create false dichotomies ("real" versus "unreal" pilots; "smart" versus "anti-smart" pilots) in order to justify one's own ego.  Think about it, Zazen... win or lose, no matter how much you admit that it is your fault when you die while flying "smart," you can always feel good about yourself because at least you don't fly "anti-smart."  After all, those folks are all about ego-salvaging and psychological slight of hand to make themselves feel good about failure.  Yep, you aren't like those dumb guys.

See where I'm going here?  You are merely creating distinctions between yourself and others so that, admit it or not, you can relish the fact that you do not fly like the others.  What you do is "harder," after all, and therefore better in your mind.  And thus win or lose, you still win compared to them.  And thus you have done to yourself exactly what you accuse them of doing to themselves.

Psychology 101.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying



See where I'm going here?  You are merely creating distinctions between yourself and others so that, admit it or not, you can relish the fact that you do not fly like the others.  What you do is "harder," after all, and therefore better in your mind.  And thus win or lose, you still win compared to them.  And thus you have done to yourself exactly what you accuse them of doing to themselves.

Psychology 101.

-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]

Whoa nelly. I never said flying smart was harder per se. It's a very different game but not necessarily harder. Flying smart only requires more discipline, patience and mental accuity during a typical sortie than flying 'un-smart'. Flying 'un-smart' and attaining some semblence or measure of success would be more physically demanding in terms of manual dexterity, reflexes and the like. So, from a purely operational point of view it's very hard to compare the two. From a psychological point of view they are equally bi-polar. The mind-set that goes into the two approaches are quite different, therefore as we know from cause and effect realtionships, the effect on the mind from outcomes is very different also. That is my assertion here.



Zazen

[Zazen13]

As I'm sure most know I'm a Billiards fanatic, humor me if you are interested while I  use billiards as a metaphor to illustrate the fundamental differences between 'smart' and 'anti-smart' flying. For the purpose of this illustration:

a 'rack' is a 'hop'
a 'ball' is a 'kill'
a 'run-out' is 'landing kills'
a 'failed run-out' is death
a 'shot' is a combination of 'gunnery' and 'flying'.

'Anti-Smart' Flying

This is like the pool player who only thinks about the current shot, he is not taking his time, he is not thinking about shape for the next shot, he is relying on his instincts and aim to make his shots. Of course because he is not 'playing shape' those shots become increasingly difficult as he progresses thru the rack. Eventually then he is forced to make very difficult low percentage shots to continue his run. If he fails to do so he loses.

Smart Flying

This is like the guys you see on television. They take their time, they think at least 3 shots ahead and play exacting shape on their next ball. These guys rarely have to make hard, low percentage shots, they do all their work mentally leaving them easy shots. This is not to say they don't have the ability to make difficult shots if required, but they rarely need to do so if their fore-thought and planning is true. The only way they lose is if they let their mental accuity lapse.

Summary

Is one way harder than the other? Well, it's like comparing apples to oranges. The guy who only thinks one shot ahead is definately having to come up with some fancy shooting to stay in the game, he's banking, caroming, cutting shots 90 degrees. But, the guy who thinks ahead is playing perfect strategy planning his run-outs from the first ball. All of his shots are relatively easy, but only because he had the patience, discipline and mental accuity to plan ahead.

So, I guess in terms of AH, the guy flying 'anti-smart' is going to have to come up with some pretty fancy flying/shooting to have any chance of success. Whereas the guy flying smart is having to use meticulous tactics, SA, and planning to succeed. Saying which is more difficult, would really depend on the person and the situation, but it's kind of like asking what is harder to master chess or football?


Zazen

[Guppy35]

LOL if only the game mattered even remotely this much

As long as you are having fun.   That's all that matters.

And since no one's really dying and planes are free, might as well live a little and dive in to the pile.

That and check the ego at the door.  There have to be better things to base your self worth on, then whether or not you are an uber AH pilot

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zazen13
Whoa nelly. I never said flying smart was harder per se. It's a very different game but not necessarily harder. Flying smart only requires more discipline, patience and mental accuity during a typical sortie than flying 'un-smart'.

[/b]

Here's the problem I see with your basic premise: almost nobody flies in a wholly "un-smart" way.  Almost nobody flies in a completely "smart" way.  Just to use myself as an example, I'll fly "smart" and select targets accordingly, pick the order in which I engage enemies based on threat prioritization, maximize my own plane's advantages and minimize those of the enemy, etc.  Should circumstances change, I don't worry as much as others about the odds, because at some point I am capable and willing to fly "un-smart" if necessary.  By un-smart, I mean that I am willing to engage at a disadvantage, but during this engagement I continue to assess the threat from each enemy, attempt to maximize my own plane's advantages and minimize those of the other planes, note the situation around me (proximity to the enemy field, proximity to friendlies, altitude of the fight, the terrain, etc), and I act accordingly.  

Flying "un-smart," if one hopes to succeed with some regularity, requires an enormous amount of situational awareness, quick decision-making, threat assessment, and the like.  In other words, it requires many of the things you attribute exclusively to flying "smart" while also requiring all of the manual/agility skills noted for flying "anti-smart."  What you attempt to establish as a dichotomy is, in fact, a hybrid, and I'd venture to say that those who fly "smart" also mix a strong element of "anti-smart" flying into their behavior.

Also, I simply cannot agree with you about the ego-salvaging nature of "anti-smart" flying.  While that may hold for some players, I have consistently stated for years (and I'm sure even on these forums if you want to look it up) that I blame nobody but myself for dying.  I expect to win every engagement, even the ones I lose.  At some point I make a bad decision, didn't check my six enough, didn't pull hard enough or pulled too hard, didn't achieve enough distance from the enemy base, and I die.  I know I'm to blame for that, but what I don't do is get all wrapped up in blaming myself or others for the failure; it is a game, after all, and I see it as a learning experience more than anything.  Shouldn't we all?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


Here's the problem I see with your basic premise: almost nobody flies in a wholly "un-smart" way.  

-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]

I know many people who fly completely one way or the other, but yes I agree most are hybrids of the two somewhere along the spectrum of polar opposites. For comparison purposes using the polar opposites is best. I equate the 'smart' and 'anti-smart' hybrid to the E-Fighter and Angles Fighter hybrid. Almost everyone who E-Fights also Angles-Fights and vice-versa to one degree or another. But, when comparing the two approaches you also use the polar extremes as examples. Comparing anything but polar opposites would be like trying to compare conservative democrats to moderate republicans, the lines get really blurry.

While I agree flying 'un-smart' can require SA, TA and such it is in a much more passive way. An 'un-smart' flyer almost always loses the initiative, he cannot use those tools to dictate terms, he must either kill all of the enemy in his vicinity or die trying, especially in a slow plane, there's very little wiggle room without the initiative. There is a distinct difference between being aware of threats via SA and being in a position to use that information in a tactical application (TA) kind of way that is likely to affect the outcome. A 'smart' flyer by maintaining the tactical initiative  and rarely if ever losing it is always in a position to use those tools and information to pro-actively dictate terms of engagements, it's the active not passive manifestation of those tools.


Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying



Also, I simply cannot agree with you about the ego-salvaging nature of "anti-smart" flying.  While that may hold for some players, I have consistently stated for years (and I'm sure even on these forums if you want to look it up) that I blame nobody but myself for dying.  I expect to win every engagement, even the ones I lose.  At some point I make a bad decision, didn't check my six enough, didn't pull hard enough or pulled too hard, didn't achieve enough distance from the enemy base, and I die.  I know I'm to blame for that, but what I don't do is get all wrapped up in blaming myself or others for the failure; it is a game, after all, and I see it as a learning experience more than anything.  Shouldn't we all?

-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]

Do you tune 200? The arena is CHOCK FULL of people who blame their cat, the alignment of the stars, the girl next door, their wife's mentrual cycle, anything they can dream of for what happens to them in the MA except themselves. You are a terrible example of 'anti-smart' because as we all know there is a method to your madness But, the average player in the MA who flies 'anti-smart' behaves and acts as I described.

Zazen

[mars01]

I know many people who fly completely one way or the other, but yes I agree most are hybrids of the two somewhere along the spectrum of polar opposites. For comparison purposes using the polar opposites is best. I equate the 'smart' and 'anti-smart' hybrid to the E-Fighter and Angles Fighter hybrid. Almost everyone who E-Fights also Angles-Fights and vice-versa to one degree or another. But, when comparing the two approaches you also use the polar extremes as examples. Comparing anything but polar opposites would be like trying to compare conservative democrats to moderate republicans, the lines get really blurry.

While I agree flying 'un-smart' can require SA, TA and such it is in a much more passive way. An 'un-smart' flyer almost always loses the initiative, he cannot use those tools to dictate terms, he must either kill all of the enemy in his vicinity or die trying, especially in a slow plane, there's very little wiggle room without the initiative. There is a distinct difference between being aware of threats via SA and being in a position to use that information in a tactical application (TA) kind of way that is likely to affect the outcome. A 'smart' flyer by maintaining the tactical initiative and rarely if ever losing it is always in a position to use those tools and information to pro-actively dictate terms of engagements, it's the active not passive manifestation of those tools.

Ever notice Zazen makes all these rediculous speaches with a bunch of words and he rarely says anything.  "I think I fly smarter" and "Tackticle smackticle blah blah blah."  You got me rolling off the couch laughing.

The difference is that if you get into trouble you are less likely to get out of it Zazen and probably more afraid of getting in that situtation.  People that learn how to deal with situations where they aren't always in the hord, don't always have a plane they can run in, aren't always on a perch above the rest will fly at the edge where it takes more skill than flying deep within the envelope where you hide.  And even more important will always be more fun to run into and fight.  They will be more agressive and the MA will be a better place.  

Unfortunately there are more guys such as yourself, that have to have the deck stacked in their favor every time they engage or they hyper extend or they just run when they might have lost the advantage or have blown three passes and figure they are better off finding someone who isn't watching LOLH.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by mars01


The difference is that if you get into trouble you are less likely to get out of it Zazen and probably more afraid of getting in that situtation.  People that learn how to deal with situations where they aren't always in the hord, don't always have a plane they can run in, aren't always on a perch above the rest will fly at the edge where it takes more skill than flying deep within the envelope where you hide.

You're preaching to the choir. I go where the food is, I am usually on the deck or close to it. I also do not vulch so often go alone, deep behind enemy lines to cut off re-enforcements, that gets me out-advantaged often. Often I am engaged by cons with the advantage and enough E to prevent me from disengaging from them. My plane flies like doggy poop above 12-15k so I stay below that generally. The difference is I am in a plane that only out-turns about 10% of the planes I am likely to encounter, whereas you are flying a plane that out-turns 95% of the planes you are likely to encounter. I would say you have a much easier task overall when fighting at a disadvantage. Obviously though, I am well able to deal with these disadvantaged situations I get into as is evidenced by my pristine K/D ratio you love so much to point out.

Zazen

[hubsonfire]

And to put it in simpler terms for the rest of you(okay, us); ask yourselves how often on range, in the middle of a fight, you've heard the panicked transmission, "Oh ****, that's Zazen in the Tempest!"

Then, (I know, quit laughing), ask yourselves how many times you've heard the panicked transmission, "Oh ****, that's Leviathn in the Tempest!"

If there's a better guage of aptitude, or "skill" at flying cartoon airplanes than that bestowed upon one by the majority of players in a given timeslot, I'd like to know what it is. What I know it's not is a lengthy diatribe trying to rationalize a particular set of behaviors in an online game.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
And to put it in simpler terms for the rest of you(okay, us); ask yourselves how often on range, in the middle of a fight, you've heard the panicked transmission, "Oh ****, that's Zazen in the Tempest!"

Then, (I know, quit laughing), ask yourselves how many times you've heard the panicked transmission, "Oh ****, that's Leviathn in the Tempest!"

I never said I was much good in a fighter. I also never compared myself with Leviathn, I have no desire to be 'like' anyone. I enjoy what I do and how I do it. You guys seem  to think people want to aspire to be like you, we don't, we're having fun doing what we do just as you have fun doing what you do. The problem I have with mars is he thinks any approach to the game other than his, is cowardly, lame and does not require any skill or talent. I personally think that is a HUGE load of horse**** and am not afriad one bit of explaining how and why it's a HUGE steaming pile of horse**** 20 different ways if I have to.

Zazen

[Simaril]

Well, this moderately entertaining thread degenerated into a poo-slinging fest a bit slower than normal -- WTG guys!!

Please note that IRL, poo slingers have smaller craniums, drag their arms, and screech uncontrollably when challenged. Shows that the BBS is just another example of HTC's amazing simulation skills!!




Here're some more article suggestions:

Buff Raids: is 30k ever enough?
Dealing with the endless upper problem

And how about a column about coming upgrades, which would have to be called 2 Weeks?

[hubsonfire]

PETA: Behind Enemy Lines. The gripping tale of one of the most controversial raids of the war.