The problem I see from a lot of people on this board is they have a pretty big blind spot, or are just stubborn and are going to stick to the "play my way" attitude.
Falcon23, I'm not picking on you, but let me use your post, and the "point of view" I get when reading it. When you run a mission, you are "flying with your squad", to others you are part of a horde. You don't believe, nor would you ever admit that you are a horde. So when ever a post comes up about "hordes" you are automatically on the defensive. This is the "blind spot" I'm talking about. Landgrabbers, win the war types, Furballers, and GVers are all guilty of it, and will defend their position completely here on the boards. What I'm about is being open minded about things, listening to other points of view, learning from others. Some may call me a furballer, but that is the "label" they put on me, to me I'm an Aces High game player. I may enjoy flying and fighting in a fight the most, but I do other things in the game as well.
So viewing with an open mind, here are my definitions.....
Mediocre players - To me is a player who will not reach his/her potential because they have stopped trying to move forward. Why learn to hit a VH with ALL the ordnance your plane carries EVERYTIME you make a run when you have 6 fellow players that well follow be hind you to finish off the job? This is one of the problems brought on by the horde. Why learn to fight 1 vs 1 in a plane when you can have 6 wingman? This type of player then becomes only able to do NOE missions with 20 of his closest buddies because they can't complete an objective any other way. They are weak in skill and tactics are, while it does work, they never will challenge themselves, why should they, it works.
Hordes - To me, a horde is overwhelming force. In a war, having 4 to 1 number superiority is a good thing, but not in a combat game that is NOT life or death, but entertainment. Honestly, is it really that much fun taking 20 guys to hit a VB? Even if half your guys missed their targets you would have a base totally flat with a couple guys still circling with bombs. There is no challenge flying in the horde, and a game is suppose to have some difficulty other wise its not all that much fun. Example... you and 4 of your friends go down to the field for a pick-up game of basket ball. There are 3 guys there shooting hoops. Do you play 5 on 3, or do you choose up sides and play 4 on 4? Most people play 4 on 4, why? because its more fun.
Average - I think this is a lot like I mentioned in the mediocre. To me an average player is one who does all things well. No they are NOT at the top of the scoreboards, nor on the front page. There are some elite fighter type, as well as buff and GVers too, but I think the main group of people who play are, or should be striving to be an average player. I consider myself an average player. I do all things OK...though I think I really suck in GVs... I think most players, who want to play the game would want to learn how to play all aspects of the game if just to have an idea of whats available, and how to counteract it. Knowing all of the basics would make most people well on their way to being an average player. Those that don't "stagnet" there and continue to learn become average, and some of those find a nich they are good at and excel and become some of those "elite" players. If you don't try to get better, you NEVER will. Of course some of us try, and only make it to average... like me.
Qualified - Who should be qualified to give these definitions, any one I guess, its up to the community to decide which definition covers the tern. I try to look at these things with an open mind. I don't want people "to play my way" other than I'd like to see them play the game. Running from a fight, doing NOE's to undefended base, after base, using overwhelming force to take an objective, and so on is NOT playing the game. COMBAT is the game, and avoiding it isn't they way it was meant to be. Again with the basket ball analogy.... you and your 4 buddies show up at the court before the team your going to play. Each of you sinks 10 baskets each before the other team shows. Technically you guys are up 100 to 0 but what have you won? If you can be honest with yourself, and look at thing objectively, then I think you should be qualified to help with the definitions.
Well those are my definitions. I'm not trying to push any one into a certain direction, I'd just like to see the game return to what it use to be. I'm not trying to accuse anyone person, or squad for the "down fall of game play", I'm just trying to point out it was much better before, and I'm sure it can be again.