Reviewing the "HO"

[grizz441]

Thanks Grizz I agree btw about the fun of a duel. Bighorn, Batfinkv, and Lengro beat me more often with the terrain (i.e. I hit a tree or the ground) than bullets.

Personally the best duel I've ever been part of was Lengro and Bighorn flying B5N's with Batfink and I gunning for them. To see how well Lengro and Bighorn worked to stay in front of the target was an amazing experience (and one that showed me how much I still need to learn). 

That sounds like a blast.  Not sure if B5Ns are enabled but 110G2s with gunners could be fun.   

[RTHolmes]

I realise that more experienced sticks will tend to avoid a HO for all the reasons above, but just out of interest has anyone tried deliberately duelling guns hot for practise maybe?

I dont mean a vet schooling a 2 weeker, but 2 equally skilled know-all-the-pilot-stuff guys where one is only working for a killshot on the merge?

I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?

[Tordon22]

what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?

You get blasted. Luckily a vast majority of people who can do this, don't. And when they do, well then you can whine on 200 

[mtnman]

My thought in posting this is to take away the negative connotations and place the topic in a knowledge/training environment instead.

From the broad range of comments I think a few things can be sifted out...

1) all "experienced" sticks here tend to agree that by and large its not viewed as an optimum choice of tactic under all but the worst circumstances

2) Most good sticks see a HO attempt by an opponent as an opportunity to apply "ACM Kung Fu" more then a credible threat

3) The difference comes in how the "Mexican standoff" is treated. Good pilots tend to expect other good pilots to recognize when both sides have an opportunity vs those when one has a clear advantage. In the event that a position is considered neutral then the potential shot is considered "cheap". Obviously this applies to more of a 1 on 1 vs a melee...

So we have the following...

a) proactively flying for the "face shot" limits development of more advanced skills since those more advanced pilots tend to be able to easily counter such a move. This leads to a cycle of less experienced pilots trading faceshots with each other and dying in a repeated and frustrating manner vs higher caliber opponents.

b) More experienced sticks are well aware of the opportunities but view it as a tactic of last resort

c) Seasoned 1 on 1 duelers are more prone to recognize if a fight is neutral and have an expectation that both parties will refrain from taking a "cheap" shot under such conditions. However this is grey area since the opposing school of thought is once the initial merge is over then guns are hot and either you get around 1st or you get out of the way....both positions have some merit.

So from what I see here the consensus seems to be that relying on the "HO" as a tactic creates more opportunities to die then to win under most circumstances and leads to a cycle of rising futility and frustration. However there is significant importance in distinguishing between a true "HO" and a valid front quarter aspect shot arrived at via proper ACM taken in the course of building a superior position...that type of shot not only can end a fight but pressure the opponent to evade and further degrade his position.

Nice summary!

The one point I may disagree with is "a)".  And maybe not disagree so much as "itch at the way it's worded".  IMO, flying for the face shot doesn't limit development of advanced skills, so much as create a desire to advance in skill.  I can't begin to tell you how many of my "students" begin our initial conversation (often following an HO attempt) with some version of "I don't know how you do that!  I can't hit you, and then right away you're around behind me and I have no chance".  A brief explanation of how their initial attempt at an HO shot lead to an easy dodge and a great position for me, and before you know it, we're in the TA, and an up-and-coming fighter-jock is born...

Now on the other hand, had I responded (or even began the conversation with him before he had a chance to) with some variety of "HO-dweeb", "HO'er" etc, where are we?  He's pissed, and I've diverted his attention away from a learning opportunity, made him defensive, and slammed some doors.  IMO, that type of stigma is far more game-damaging/game-degrading/immature/ridiculous than a pilot going for the HO-shot, even if he/she does it repeatedly, or for that matter never progresses beyond it.  Who wants to ask a pr#@k for help?  If the inexperienced pilots see the "vets" as pompous, arrogant, etc, they're not going to want to ask for help, and if they have any self-esteem at all they're sure as heck not going to be in any hurry to join the "in" crowd.

[mtnman]

Mtnman, going back to my analogy of the pickup basketball game, sure it's a valid shot. Just the same as fouling someone at the end of a close game is valid, but it sure doesn't make the game any "better". And unlike basketball, there's no penalty or getting benched if you do it repeatedly. Since there's no game clock it's really better for the game if we can avoid it.

What doesn't work for me with this analogy is that pointing your plane at your opponent and shooting him is the goal.  It isn't a foul.

For the basketball analogy to work, it'd have to be fir a foul that's called for something like shooting the ball (whether it scores or not) in the initial few seconds of the game.  Or of the quarter.  Or for a football player running the kick-off back and scoring.  Scoring (or attempting to) too soon in the game for someone's liking...  Ridiculous?  Sure.  Just like I feel about the anti-HO slant in AH. 

Poking holes in the other guy is the goal.  It's an obvious goal.  People should look out for other people that are trying to poke holes in them.  The guns are in front.  Look out for the front.

[mtnman]

Dear RTHolmes, just for you I'll go off topic (AH Gods, forgive me)

In a duel, cold gun merge makes perfect sense.
Why?
Well, what is the purpose of a duel? Oh that's right. You remember now...
You see, everything should be about as equal as possible, bar the pilot.
Hot merge would put one of the duelists into unfavorable position even before duel would start, unless there would be third party giving either audible or visual duel start sign (or in that case, sign when you can fire).
That's right, due to the lag (which isn't the same for all) that's not possible. So duel starts when duelists pass 3-9 line. Not perfect, but you don't need third party, makes hot merge rather difficult though.
Anyway, you can play by other rules (any kind) as long as both duelists agree to.


Wait, there's more.
You've mention reality of MA fighting (is there fighting in MA?)...
Does boxing match prepare you for the bar brawl?



ahistorical, contrived and pointless   (Image removed from quote.)


So why people duel regardless of duels being ahistorical, contrived and pointless? Oh, that's right, it's FUN! Yes, it's a GAME! WWII ended 65 years ago.

Now, from a "fun", "agreed-upon", standpoint, or from some sort of "position-balancing" viewpoint, I can agree with your no-HO stance.  Or at least with the goal of the "rule".

I also agree with the idea that it isn't perfect.  IMO, it isn't any more perfect than some variety of "hot merge" rule could be, but then again, it isn't a game I choose to play, so it doesn't matter to me, and my opinion shouldn't matter to you in that respect, either.

The "cold merge" rule, on the other hand is exactly why it isn't a game I'd choose to play, and why it's not possible for me to see it as what I would consider a "valid" fight.  I'd rather explore options to create a "fair start" to a "hot merge", even though I'd never be interested in opening with an HO...  The "hot merge" is what I see as a tool to keep the merge "honest".  I can think of a few options, which of course could (not saying "would") be viewed as flawed, just as I see the merges resulting from "cold merges" as flawed.  Guys "jumping the gun" on their oh-so-predictable immelmanns, merging with practically no separation, cutting throttle, even the few guys that empty their MG's to lower weight, all in the interest of eeking an advantage from what's supposed to be an "equal start".

Win or lose, those are some of the reasons I'm not impressed or interested in duels.  I'd rather log and watch paint dry, or go work with someone who wants help.  To me, those are fights built on no foundation.  I consider the merge one of the most important parts of the fight, and in order to capitalize on a merge in the DA, I feel like I need to break away from what I consider important parts, in the interest of "fairness".  But again, it's not my game, it's yours, so I wouldn't expect my opinion to hold much, if any, weight for you.

By the same token, I don't come into the DA duel "game" and whine about no hot merges, so should I expect the anti-HO stigma and all that goes with it in the area I frequent?  I suppose I could launch into an "HO-dweeb-calling dweeb" tirade, but then I'd look as ridiculous as the guys crying "HO-dweeb", and what would that accomplish?

MA fights?  I'm infinitely more interested and impressed with those.  If I start at 1K, and you start at 10K, or behind me, or below me, or in front of me, or beside me, or with a buddy, same plane, different pane, whatever, I'm going to be more impressed if you beat me, than if you beat me in a cold-merge "duel".  That's just my opinion though.  Now, if I'm beat 3v1, I'm not as impressed, and at some point I'd expect my opponent to be "skilled enough" to not need a friend or two, but whatever...  HO me, gang me, it's all good fun.  And if I get sick of it, I'll alter the situation to where those tactics don't work as well against me.  I need the added stimulus of what I see as a more liquid, more challenging, less "staged" environment.

[mtnman]

You get blasted. Luckily a vast majority of people who can do this, don't. And when they do, well then you can whine on 200 

I don't think it's "luck" that keeps "those who can" from doing it. 

It's a sense of self-protection, or "I don't need to", or I'm better off if I don't", as just a few examples.

[FireDrgn]

I realise that more experienced sticks will tend to avoid a HO for all the reasons above, but just out of interest has anyone tried deliberately duelling guns hot for practise maybe?

I dont mean a vet schooling a 2 weeker, but 2 equally skilled know-all-the-pilot-stuff guys where one is only working for a killshot on the merge?

I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?

Ill have a go at it with you RTHomes....   What do you think will happen?   I think your going to see the same thing you do in the  MA when to guys HO  each other ... both blow up and someone get a proxy.....

What does TWO KNOW IT ALL pilots have to do with anything...... You take every thing out of the equation  except for  guns and hitting your target...... Isn't that the point.... Those that go for the HO is because they believe they dont have a BETTER choice.

[Baumer]

Mtnman I understand your perspective on my analogy. However, you can not point me to any document provided by HTC that would state "The objective of Aces High II is for you to point your plane at the opponent and shoot him."

We as players get to choose what our own personal objective is for the game.

There are many different (completely valid) objectives one can have playing this game, from purely enjoying flying with your friends, to being the best Corsair pilot. My personal objective is to enjoy the game, and to learn all the different aspects of Aces High. So if I choose to constrain my actions (by not taking a HO shot) in order to provide a better playing environment that's my choice. Talking to others about what makes an enjoyable game experience is a means to helping people who might also want a better experience.

This doesn't preclude you from your objective of pointing at me and shooting.

[mtnman]

I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?

Even with "exceptional gunnery" and (HO?) ability, it's never going to amount to a "good" option.  As I mentioned, even though the damage options amount to a 50/50 ratio, I don't think (from what I've seen, anyway) it amounts to a 50/50 shot in the end.

I think your chances of "success" will always be much lower than that, if you consider shooting down the other guy as "success".  From what I've seen, most HO shots amount in just plain missing, especially against someone who's watching for it and can deal with that type of attack.  Even if 1/2 of those attacks amount in a miss, and 1/2 of the hits amount in a "win", that's only a 25% rate of success.  From my experience, that's actually quite a bit over-inflated from reality.  Now, with that 25% "success" rate, I'm including wins that come a little later, but due to damage delivered in the initial HO.  

Of course, if one pilot is avoiding it, it isn't an HO, either.

In reality, against an experienced pilot, I doubt you'd see a 5% rate of "success".  I approach every merge expecting an HO, and although I see lots of attempts, I'm seldom even hit, let alone given much damage.  When I am damaged, I may simply continue on my way and go get a new plane.

Try it though, it'd be an interesting experiment...  You won't see me calling you names if you try it one me  

Also, I think that as skill and gunnery improve, there's going to be a progression away from HO's anyway.  From a personal standpoint, success isn't about killing this guy.  It's about killing and surviving, landing multiple kills, and doing it in a hazardous environment.  The HO is simply too risky.  

[mtnman]

Mtnman I understand your perspective on my analogy. However, you can not point me to any document provided by HTC that would state "The objective of Aces High II is for you to point your plane at the opponent and shoot him."

We as players get to choose what our own personal objective is for the game.

There are many different (completely valid) objectives one can have playing this game, from purely enjoying flying with your friends, to being the best Corsair pilot. My personal objective is to enjoy the game, and to learn all the different aspects of Aces High. So if I choose to constrain my actions (by not taking a HO shot) in order to provide a better playing environment that's my choice. Talking to others about what makes an enjoyable game experience is a means to helping people who might also want a better experience.

This doesn't preclude you from your objective of pointing at me and shooting.

Good point!

Doesn't make the HO equate to a foul though, does it?  

And I like your stance on talking to others about what might improve or make an enjoyable experience.  I wish I saw that approach more often when it comes to "discussing" the HO in the game.

<Edit>
A poll might be interesting...  How many people play this game without the goal of pointing their plane at their opponent and shooting him, in a situation where the discussion of HOing would be relevant? 

I can see it of course, for C47 pilots, or bomber pilots, or the guys who go attack undefended airfields, or the guys who just want to drop their ord and get out...  How many just fly with their friends, and don't try to poke holes in red guys when they can?  How many drive tanks or other vehicles, with no interest shooting at the other team?

[2bighorn]

Now, from a "fun", "agreed-upon", standpoint, or from some sort of "position-balancing" viewpoint, I can agree with your no-HO stance.  Or at least with the goal of the "rule".

I also agree with the idea that it isn't perfect.  IMO, it isn't any more perfect than some variety of "hot merge" rule could be, but then again, it isn't a game I choose to play, so it doesn't matter to me, and my opinion shouldn't matter to you in that respect, either.

Why it wouldn't matter? Just because I like dueling it doesn't mean I dislike MA. Besides, you can do all kind of things in dueling arena, including having your own dueling rules.

Different arenas, different gameplay, DA, MA, AvA, KoTH, they complement each other. Whilst having preferences, I do not limit myself to single arena, nor did I ever say, to anyone, which they should prefer.

One they have in common though. HO shot is a bad choice in all of them, most of the time. It rather distract from solid ACM. Exceptions noted earlier.

The "cold merge" rule, on the other hand is exactly why it isn't a game I'd choose to play, and why it's not possible for me to see it as what I would consider a "valid" fight.  I'd rather explore options to create a "fair start" to a "hot merge", even though I'd never be interested in opening with an HO...  The "hot merge" is what I see as a tool to keep the merge "honest".  I can think of a few options, which of course could (not saying "would") be viewed as flawed, just as I see the merges resulting from "cold merges" as flawed.  Guys "jumping the gun" on their oh-so-predictable immelmanns, merging with practically no separation, cutting throttle, even the few guys that empty their MG's to lower weight, all in the interest of eeking an advantage from what's supposed to be an "equal start".

There is no DA or MA merge. Only good or bad merge. I can assure you that solid merge works equally well in DA as in MA. Hot or cold.

MA fights?  I'm infinitely more interested and impressed with those.  If I start at 1K, and you start at 10K, or behind me, or below me, or in front of me, or beside me, or with a buddy, same plane, different pane, whatever, I'm going to be more impressed if you beat me, than if you beat me in a cold-merge "duel".  That's just my opinion though.  Now, if I'm beat 3v1, I'm not as impressed, and at some point I'd expect my opponent to be "skilled enough" to not need a friend or two, but whatever...  HO me, gang me, it's all good fun.  And if I get sick of it, I'll alter the situation to where those tactics don't work as well against me.  I need the added stimulus of what I see as a more liquid, more challenging, less "staged" environment.

OK, that's your personal choice and is noted, but I really don't see what that has to do with "HO shot or ACM" question in general?
Just because you don't mind HO (or being good enough to avoid it) doesn't mean it's a good choice. Please find me some air combat literature where HO shots are sold as a good choice (rare exceptions noted).

[FireDrgn]

 MTman  "I approach every merge expecting an HO, "   I have never seen you play like this and ive  fought  you more than once.       You approach every merge expecting the front  quarter shot.   There is a big  differance.....


Thats not a HO...  Its simply a front quarter shot before the first merge.              Im not seeing any one in this thread differentiating   between  HO and Front Quarter shot.....


Its really  hard to follow the discusion  here.   What is the point of defining Ho and front quarter shot if every one is going to use Ho to describe both ?

Guns  hot  before the first merge  or 2nd  or 3rd ect....  is NOT the same thing as a HO.         
             

<S>

[TheRapier]

FireDrgn, I think that is precisely the problem. Real ACM pilots know the difference but get accused by the uninitiated. For all intents and purposes the hostility to the HO covers any front quarter shot for the majority of pilots.

In that sense, I think that ultimately this discussion will get bogged down in that. What I think MtnMan and I have advocated is to expect the HO or front quarter shot and defend against it. That is the only stance that makes sense and will WORK in the arena.

[TequilaChaser]

FireDrgn, I think that is precisely the problem. Real ACM pilots know the difference but get accused by the uninitiated. For all intents and purposes the hostility to the HO covers any front quarter shot for the majority of pilots.

In that sense, I think that ultimately this discussion will get bogged down in that. What I think MtnMan and I have advocated is to expect the HO or front quarter shot and defend against it. That is the only stance that makes sense and "WILL WORK" in the MAIN arenas.

I been reading this topic since it has been posted.. and the (2) underlined sentences I quoted above is exactly how each player should approach each encounter in the main arenas.......

it is good etiquette to encourage new & old players alike, the short comings of going for the "HO", but it is still left up to each individual on how they decide to fight........ some might see the light, others never will........ and they will pay dearly for it....

just my view on the matter......

edit - ( Rapier, I made a small edit to your original post    )