When Is It Alright to HO?

[mtnman]

We have had this argument before so I am not going to go round and round again with a game of words.

What it comes down to is how you play the game, period. Players like mtnman and others play the game for the kill. For them it is unimportant "how" they get the kill, only that they get it. This goes for every newbi dweeb all the way up the skill ladder to players well skilled like mtnman.

On the other hand there are those like me, and Shiv and many others who play this game for the fight. To us, out flying and "saddling up" to then saw a wing off the other guy is what its all about for us. To us there is an "honor" to the fight, after all its the whole reason for being there.

It's kinda like having a shoot out at high noon. The clock strikes 12, we turn towards the other player and flip our over coat back behind the holster to clear our draw of our trusty 6 gun. Mean while the other guy does the same only to reveal a couple of uzi's. It just kinda takes the fun out of the fight!

You're more like me than you know; you just have an issue with a particular shot, while I don't.

And I agree, it's kind of pointless to go around and around.  You don't have a valid, supportable, argument in my eyes and you don't seem interested in opening your eyes to a broader horizon.  

Anyone who knows me would never claim that I'm just in it for the kill, and/or that it's unimportant how I get it.  Your statement above is flat-out wrong and inaccurate.  It's not surprising though.  It seems a normal tactic for the "non-HO" crowd to claim they have the higher ground.  It's looks to me to be an attempt to hide the lack of compelling argument with a smoke-screen of sorts.  As in "If you don't agree with me, or fight the way I want, you're a dweeb, or at least you're not in it for the fight".  The general response is to refute the name-calling, and ignore the fact that the fight being asked for is a lower-level, easier, fight than was given.

I play for the fight, EXACTLY as you describe yourself and Shiv.  

The only difference is that for me to consider the fight valid, I must have the threat of an HO.  I would argue that you and Shiv are settling for/arguing for a type of fight that I consider sub-par.  I would consider myself requiring a fight on a higher, more-realistic, more-threatening level than you desire.

It's actually how I approach life in general.  I like things to be difficult.  I hunt with a flintlock rifle, a longbow with hand-made arrows, and a falcon.  I consider modern firearms and bows with wheels on them to be too easy.  I consider a fight with HO's "banned" to be too easy.  Win or lose, it makes no difference to me, it's too easy.

In your analogy above, I'd consider myself to be the gunfighter, with you having the advantage of weapon.  Matter-of-fact, I'd prefer that type of fight; I like a challenge.  I'd consider it ok for you to have the Uzi, but I wouldn't consider it ok if I had the Uzi...  

I don't HO.  I do need my opponent to feel like he can do it though, with no gripe from me.  I'd consider it perfectly ok for you to HO me, but I wouldn't HO you.

And, he should fear the possibility of an HO from me so that he/we can keep the fight respectable and honest.

[shiv]

There's the question of limited playing time to consider. If you don't get to play that much, and you just get hoed all the time it ruins that limited time for you. We have to consider the overall experience.

But I get your and Ink's point for sure.


--

And <S> Ink btw.

[mtnman]

There's the question of limited playing time to consider. If you don't get to play that much, and you just get hoed all the time it ruins that limited time for you. We have to consider the overall experience.

But I get your and Ink's point for sure.
--

And <S> Ink btw.

Lol!  Again, I have to agree with you there Shiv (if you remove the part about being Ho'ed, of course).  

My play time is extremely limited lately, so it's even more important that I can find fights at a high-enough level to keep me happy.  A "no-HO" allowed rule would make that impossible.

[shiv]

Lol!  Again, I have to agree with you there Shiv (if you remove the part about being Ho'ed, of course).  

My play time is extremely limited lately, so it's even more important that I can find fights at a high-enough level to keep me happy.  A "no-HO" allowed rule would make that impossible.

Lol <S> And by the way, good clean fite all around 



and <<S>> Fugi

[mtnman]

Lol <S> And by the way, good clean fite 

You know, it was. 

Might have to buy you a beer sometime!

<S>

[caldera]

I like things to be difficult.

Except for your plane choice.   


Every time when in a close engagement, I try to dodge the oncoming plane and pay for it with a last second FQ shot.  From now on, the rule is "shoot if it's in the sight".

[mtnman]

Except for your plane choice.   


Every time when in a close engagement, I try to dodge the oncoming plane and pay for it with a last second FQ shot.  From now on, the rule is "shoot if it's in the sight".

Let me guess...   You think you fly a more difficult plane?  And that it likely limits your success?

I fly the F4U simply based on the looks, and that's really it.  It has nothing to do with the flight model, good or bad.  It's the only fighter in the world that I have more than a slight passing interest in.  I flew the F4U when all it did was get me killed (for years, literally), for the same reasons.  FWIW, I really don't have any problems getting kills in any of the planes in AH.  I rely much more on basic ACM and use of "3D" space than the pixels I'm surrounded by.

It sounds like you must have some pretty basic issues with the merge, if you're suffering from FQ hits.  I'm pretty comfortable saying it has nothing to do with the plane you or your opponent chooses to fly. 

It sounds like you're going to give up on fixing your flying (I'm assuming you've tried?), blame it on the other guy (or his plane, maybe?), and take what you perceive to be the easy route.  Would you like me to predict how successful you'll find that strategy to be?

Bravo!  I look forward to meeting you in the AH skies!

[caldera]

Let me guess...   You think you fly a more difficult plane?  And that it likely limits your success?

I fly the F4U simply based on the looks, and that's really it.  It has nothing to do with the flight model, good or bad.  It's the only fighter in the world that I have more than a slight passing interest in.  I flew the F4U when all it did was get me killed (for years, literally), for the same reasons.  FWIW, I really don't have any problems getting kills in any of the planes in AH.  I rely much more on basic ACM and use of "3D" space than the pixels I'm surrounded by.

It sounds like you must have some pretty basic issues with the merge, if you're suffering from FQ hits.  I'm pretty comfortable saying it has nothing to do with the plane you or your opponent chooses to fly. 

It sounds like you're going to give up on fixing your flying (I'm assuming you've tried?), blame it on the other guy (or his plane, maybe?), and take what you perceive to be the easy route.  Would you like me to predict how successful you'll find that strategy to be?

Bravo!  I look forward to meeting you in the AH skies!

I was making a joke.  Not intending to hurt your feelings.  That being said, flying the same plane  every sortie for years and years would make even an average pilot a tough adversary.  You must realize that the Corsair is maybe the most versatile plane in the set and seriously lethal in the hands of an above average pilot.  That's what I mean by easy.  Not easy for a noob but a well flown Corsair is the one plane above all others that I don't want on my six. 

I make no bones about having any skill and wasn't impugning yours.

And the FQ shots I was referring to are from knife fighting with both planes going slow in close quarters.  I try not to HO but breaking off presents a bigger target.

[mtnman]

I was making a joke.  Not intending to hurt your feelings.  That being said, flying the same plane  every sortie for years and years would make even an average pilot a tough adversary.  You must realize that the Corsair is maybe the most versatile plane in the set and seriously lethal in the hands of an above average pilot.  That's what I mean by easy.  Not easy for a noob but a well flown Corsair is the one plane above all others that I don't want on my six. 

I make no bones about having any skill and wasn't impugning yours.

And the FQ shots I was referring to are from knife fighting with both planes going slow in close quarters.  I try not to HO but breaking off presents a bigger target.

I apologize for taking it the wrong way.  I'm a little sensitive to the oft-heard easy-mode comments regarding the F4U (which seem to come up almost as often as I hear complaints about HO's, lol).

I feel about the same way when it comes to the KI-84, as you do about the F4U.  Those things give me some serious trouble if they're flown by a skilled pilot.

I am curious though, about what it is about the situation you describe above that gets you HO'ed?  I'm in that type of fight quite commonly, but don't let it get to an HO situation.  I always expect my opponent to fire on me if he gets a solution, regardless of where my nose is pointed, and obviously fly to avoid letting him get a solution of any type.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm the best stick in the world, but I seriously don't get HO'ed more than once every few months?  Even that is probably inflated??  Even the oft-maligned, almost indefensible gang-bang HO is a rarity for me.  Sure, guys sling lead at me all the time, they just hit me so seldom that it's a non-factor.

It's a serious question, and one I struggled with a lot as a trainer.  I could easily teach someone to put themselves in a merge situation where they were safe from an HO (and where an HO attempt by their opponent would at worst case be "fine" and at best might actually be a benefit) and where they'd likely be on their opponents six (safe from an HO) for the rest of the fight.  But, I still commonly heard them complain of getting hit by HO's in the MA, which just boggles my mind.  I find it flat-out astounding that pilots of "higher caliber" seem to "still" have issues with the HO to the point where they've given up on learning to avoid it/defeat it/work around it, and would prefer instead to put a social stigma on it and effectively remove it as a threat.

The best analogy I can think of would be a high-level mathematician who had issues with fractions, so complained about them every time he saw them, and tried to get them "done away with" in the USA.  Just doesn't make any sense to me.

Do people not recognize the threat soon enough as a whole?  Or do they recognize it but fail to move to defeat the threat soon enough?  Or do they just go in with a hope and a prayer that their opponent won't fire at the solution they're giving him (in this latter case I'm actually ok with them getting shot up; Darwin had a point).

I could train folks to avoid the HO on merges, and to stay out of HO situations in knife fights, but not to

[ink]

I apologize for taking it the wrong way.  I'm a little sensitive to the oft-heard easy-mode comments regarding the F4U (which seem to come up almost as often as I hear complaints about HO's, lol).

I feel about the same way when it comes to the KI-84, as you do about the F4U.  Those things give me some serious trouble if they're flown by a skilled pilot.

I am curious though, about what it is about the situation you describe above that gets you HO'ed?  I'm in that type of fight quite commonly, but don't let it get to an HO situation.  I always expect my opponent to fire on me if he gets a solution, regardless of where my nose is pointed, and obviously fly to avoid letting him get a solution of any type.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm the best stick in the world, but I seriously don't get HO'ed more than once every few months?  Even that is probably inflated??  Even the oft-maligned, almost indefensible gang-bang HO is a rarity for me.  Sure, guys sling lead at me all the time, they just hit me so seldom that it's a non-factor.

It's a serious question, and one I struggled with a lot as a trainer.  I could easily teach someone to put themselves in a merge situation where they were safe from an HO (and where an HO attempt by their opponent would at worst case be "fine" and at best might actually be a benefit) and where they'd likely be on their opponents six (safe from an HO) for the rest of the fight.  But, I still commonly heard them complain of getting hit by HO's in the MA, which just boggles my mind.  I find it flat-out astounding that pilots of "higher caliber" seem to "still" have issues with the HO to the point where they've given up on learning to avoid it/defeat it/work around it, and would prefer instead to put a social stigma on it and effectively remove it as a threat.

The best analogy I can think of would be a high-level mathematician who had issues with fractions, so complained about them every time he saw them, and tried to get them "done away with" in the USA.  Just doesn't make any sense to me.

Do people not recognize the threat soon enough as a whole?  Or do they recognize it but fail to move to defeat the threat soon enough?  Or do they just go in with a hope and a prayer that their opponent won't fire at the solution they're giving him (in this latter case I'm actually ok with them getting shot up; Darwin had a point).

I could train folks to avoid the HO on merges, and to stay out of HO situations in knife fights, but not to

that's because she is a bad wamma jamma...and probably the best "fighter" in the hanger

[Oldman731]

I could toss in that the non-HO group as a whole has also seem (IMO) more disrespectful and confrontational than the "pro-HO group".  I see derogatory comments slung at those who are accused (rightly or wrongly) of HOing every single time I log into the game.  How does that equate to a higher level of sportsmanship?

At the basketball game:

Team One Player:  (Punches Team Two Player in the nose)

Team Two Player:  "Hey!  You punched me in the nose, you weiner, that's unsportsmanlike!"

Referee:  "Team Two Player, you're out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct!"


You're suggestion that people simply keep quiet about HOs, if implemented, will obviously remove the topic from discussion.  It won't change the nature of the conduct.  It may be easy for you to be above it all, but there's nothing wrong with lesser folk talking about the subject.

- oldman

[The Fugitive]

And I agree, it's kind of pointless to go around and around.  You don't have a valid, supportable, argument in my eyes and you don't seem interested in opening your eyes to a broader horizon.  

ahhh but to me it is you who don't have a valid, supportable, argument in my eyes and you don't seem interested in opening your eyes to a broader horizon.  

I think its a "term" issue that really gets these discussions off track. I think the "HO" should be removed because I believe that by having it in the game gives me an advantage going into almost every fight. If a vast majority of the opponents come into the fight with nothing on their mind but driving strait at my nose with guns blazing they have removed many options in their arsenal and thus give ME the advantage KNOWING what they are doing. This to me cheapins the fight as more and more fights not only end the same way they start the same way, and increasingly progress the same way. Removing the HO would even the playing ground by forcing the "HOers' to come up with a plan of attack.

The "TERM" issue comes in where caldera and I say "we get HOed" I very rarely take hits when HOed because I know how to avoid them, however when I say I get HOed I mean the opponent I'm fighting does nothing but haul his nose around to come back at my nose. It doesn't mean I'm hauling MY nose back around to them. Most fights in the MA start this way, and most are now continuing this way. It's a great surprise to see someone to instead go into a Hi yo-yo after you merge, and exciting.

Also when I said "your a guy who goes out for the kill", I wasn't talking down to you, nor taking the high road, or claiming to be better than you. I meant it much the same way as if I said "some players like to fly high alt buffs, unlike Shiv and I who like to fly fighters". You play the game a different way THAT IS ALL. There is nothing "wrong" with it, nor am I saying there is. You play for the kill. You have said that if a plane is in your sites you will shoot, whether they are pointing their nose at you or not doesn't matter. I understand that and respect that. Again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. To me however, I play for the fight. I don't even care if I get the kill in the end. If I flew well and saddled up and got a few rounds in I consider it a win. I out flew my opponent. Getting the kill to me is nothing more than "score keeping" and is unimportant. Most likely because my aim sucks so bad I rarely have time to finish someone of before I get "help" from a picker 

[mtnman]

At the basketball game:

Team One Player:  (Punches Team Two Player in the nose)

Team Two Player:  "Hey!  You punched me in the nose, you weiner, that's unsportsmanlike!"

Referee:  "Team Two Player, you're out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct!"


You're suggestion that people simply keep quiet about HOs, if implemented, will obviously remove the topic from discussion.  It won't change the nature of the conduct.  It may be easy for you to be above it all, but there's nothing wrong with lesser folk talking about the subject.

- oldman

Where does punching fit into basketball?

In AH, the fighters are supposed to shoot at each other....

To compare a basketball game AH, we'd have to liken HOing to scoring with a lay-up.  Are lay-ups unsportsmanlike?  Would basketball be a better sport if only shots beyond a certain distance were allowed (or considered good conduct)?

[mtnman]

You have said that if a plane is in your sites you will shoot, whether they are pointing their nose at you or not doesn't matter.

Where?

Again, you seem to think there's a difference between how you fight and I fight?  

I don't see it, form your description of how you fight.

How is the way you play the game different from mine?

Are you actually reading my posts?

[mtnman]

ahhh but to me it is you who don't have a valid, supportable, argument in my eyes and you don't seem interested in opening your eyes to a broader horizon.  

Fair enough...  I was in the same "anti-HO" phase you're in now too.  I know how hard it can be to get past it.

... This to me cheapins the fight as more and more fights not only end the same way they start the same way, and increasingly progress the same way. Removing the HO would even the playing ground by forcing the "HOers' to come up with a plan of attack.

You honestly don't see how this exactly describes the "non-HO-allowed" "fight" as well?  This realization is what ultimately lead me to consider "non-ho-allowed" fights invalid (or at least sub-par).  It did take me quite a while (more than a year?).

It didn't lead me to begin HOing, of course, but it made me see the value of it as a threat.

Switch "removing" with "allowing" on your last sentence, and it becomes more accurate.