How do you construe getting up to a couple thousand yards separation as leaving the fight?
I had to go back a bit to find this post....
I can understand flying with the attitude of our cartoon life meaning something. I think we all do to some extent, but there is a fine line there. Value the life too much and your always looking for better odds before engaging in a fight, value it too little and your running around with your hair on fire to get more kills before you die to keep your k/d above boards.
I fly for the fight. If while working on 2 bad guys a third and forth show up, I have no trouble diving into the ack, or extending to drag out the fight to get the numbers better. What I do have trouble with is those that will dive out because they know your about to "remove large chunks from their planes", but turn back after you have turned your attention to his two buddies who have stayed in the fight.
This game is suppose to be about fighting, not running away from one, not hiding from one, not avoiding one by use of over whelming numbers, nor throwing your cartoon life away with arcade type flying, but just plain old fighting.
This the quote that started this turn about the "running from a fight". In it I point out the fine line of what some consider running from a fight, and resetting the fight (I know, I'll get to that one in a minute.) and then pointed out how
I veiw the fights, NOT how everyone should. If you want to egress a couple thousand yards go for it, its how you want to play, me I prefer to do some of that "pilot crap". The issue I find lame is those that run from a fight only to return when you have superior numbers.
It has always been that way. Doesn't make it cool, but there's nothing new there.
It hasn't always been this bad, and what wrong with pointing out that running from a fight only to return when you have superior numbers is lame?
Would you mind not trying to redefine what is meant by "reseting the fight". We do actually use that term to teach ya know. Maybe that's the wrong thing though...Maybe HT would be happier if the 3+ month rate of subscribed accounts declined a bit, because telling them to beat their head against the wall and just keep yanking on the stick when they are almost certian to fail is the cool thing to do.
I used the term that way because Ren used it in his post....
You missed the point. A dogfight happens to have an objective. Otherwise why be there? If you are loosing the fight then you find a way to reset the fight. If that means you extend to gain an advantage from a disadvantage then that is part of a dogfight. To sit there and say, "well he got on my 6 so I'll just go level and die because both I and he deserve what's about to happen" is pure BS (spelled bolshevik). If I extend and retake the initiative and shoot him done then guess what...He died. I didn't. That is a dogfight. If you actually feel that because you happened to get an advantage on someone that you should then, and rightfully so (in your mind) be handed the kill. Then when I finally retire and can I really wanna start smokin whatever it is that you have.
Talk about a dream world..."i beat you for an instant so i deserve the kill, roll over and take it like a man" MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
In a dogfight it's not over until someone goes down in flames. Period.
ps- you gotta tell me what yer on so I can start saving for it. 
I'm sure glad it's not your football...No one would be playing here.
Ren
* HOs lame
Wayyyy to vauge. Head on attack is a valid tactic. That said, it has an inherent drawback. It places you in the enemies line of fire. So typically it is not the best choice. Secondly, death in the game (and rightly so) does not carry a harsh penalty, and scoring is based on killing/damaging the enemy. So it ends up being used unrealisticly in the game. Sometimes however, it is the best choice (and usually the only one left). Might as well throw in an HT quote...
I agree, but while you and I and many others "know" its not the best choice, it is fast becoming the first choice. More and more people are now using it as their first, second, and third move....if they last that long. Yes there is always going to be that gray area... out numbered 3 to 1 and while dodging a bogie you end up with a HO shot and you take it. But if the HO on a merge is considered by all as lame wouldn't that cut back on the number of HO's and maybe get more people to look into learning a merge move or two?
* spawn camping lame It's part of any game. Unlike any old game, there are mulitple options for dealing with it.
agreed, but a guy can dream can't he
* being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame Wow, is it 6 now? I remember in AW when one would be ashamed to be the thrid guy on an enemy. I agree btw.
* bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame It's part of the game mechanics, unless HTC wants to remove it, deal with it.
Its only a part of the mechanics for a few maps, not all of them. This falls under the same lame play of having 10-20 goons drop troops at the same time.
* hiding captured CVs lame There's a tool for diagreement on that. It's called pulling rank. Last time I pulled rank, I moved the CV out of combat effectively to hide it. Had I not done so, we were in jeprody of losing all CVs in the eastern waters of Trinity. When a home port was secured, I set course back to the combat zone, and gave up command.
Understandable in that situation, but like most of these things your being to specific. If we have our CVs and capture one from the other team is it ok to hide it? I don't think so, its there to be used, so use it.
