Fighting the "Good" Fight

[muzik]

the Lead is not there to set up the bandit for a pick by the 2nd, but rather to have an uninterrupted opportunity to finish of the bandit himself.

This sounds like the typical self serving logic used on the BBs. I don't think it is intentional way of thinking, just short sighted. In RL, they went after the kills, and yes someone stayed high. #2 tried to stay with his wingman. If #1 missed a shot, #2 would take it.

Your version is what people in this game WANT to happen, not what is prudent. But the most glaring oversight is, most of us want to be in the fight not watching it. So it's rare that you find someone who wants to wait around while you have all the fun.

Take into consideration how often you find a single bandit where the high cover can leisurely watch your 6. And if you're so far away from any action, why do you need high cover? In this case, #1 has a HUGE advantage because he doesn't worry about watching his six while the bandit has to constantly watch your high cover. That fair?

If you are close to the action and someone dives in, you lose your high cover. Now you're in a furball and the possibility of one of your guys getting picked is high. So now we are back to the pick/dont pick argument.

The point is, there are far too many variables to consider and this argument that picking is wrong will never make any sense other than this... all this is about beating baby seals and REMOVING the risk involved in doing it.

If we want "good fights" that are challenging, we all know who those people that give us the great 1v1s are and we can usually find one of them on and ask to duel.

I've had some great fights with you and they have always been in the vicinity of a lot of action. I remember good guys and bad guys flying all around us. I never asked for help and apparently you didn't either. These fights were as intense as they were because there was a high risk of getting picked. Take that away and they might have still been good fights, but they wouldn't have been great.

[Babalonian]

[Vinkman]

This sounds like the typical self serving logic used on the BBs. I don't think it is intentional way of thinking, just short sighted. In RL, they went after the kills, and yes someone stayed high. #2 tried to stay with his wingman. If #1 missed a shot, #2 would take it.

Self serving comes in a lot of forms. Not sure taking turns being the lead is more self serving than 4 guys trying to clear your 12 is. 

Your version is what people in this game WANT to happen, not what is prudent. But the most glaring oversight is, most of us want to be in the fight not watching it. So it's rare that you find someone who wants to wait around while you have all the fun.

I think it's really the same amount of action. I'm dog fighting and 3 green guys jump in and shoot at my bandit. 5 second later me or one of them is killed by the 2nd and 3rd bandit on the scene. Why not count to 5 and then kill the 2nd and 3rd bandit? This happens constantly. I never understand the stupidity of going for the same bandit. If you think you're saving a country-man, you're probably making an error if you haven't asked if he needs help. You put both planes at risk by leaving a the second bandit un-engaged. All I'm suggesting is to dive on the second one. There's always a second one. 

Take into consideration how often you find a single bandit where the high cover can leisurely watch your 6. And if you're so far away from any action, why do you need high cover? In this case, #1 has a HUGE advantage because he doesn't worry about watching his six while the bandit has to constantly watch your high cover. That fair?

In this scenario you don't need cover. Just need to decide who is taking lead. The others watching until you kill him, then on to the next bandit. Only one person is getting the kill anyway. What does 4 guys racing each other do? Is that quality action? It just get's 4 guys low and slow instead of 1. Is it fun to race 3 countrymen to the deck to try and kill one bandit? Best for all to just take turns I think. 

If you are close to the action and someone dives in, you lose your high cover. Now you're in a furball and the possibility of one of your guys getting picked is high. So now we are back to the pick/dont pick argument.

Here is where it pays off. Lead is in. Instantly 2nd's job is to look for bandit trying to pick the Leader, and engage the picker. Once 2nd calls in on the picker, 3rd's job is intantly to look for bandit engaging 2nd. and so on. I think staying closer works best. "High cover" is the not, perhaps, the correct term. Just above the action enough to dive to intercept. Then 2nd, and 3rd, are chasing or turn fighting too. Of course 3 guys could jump the Leader and three more Jump the 2nd, etc..but no plan is perfect.

The point is, there are far too many variables to consider and this argument that picking is wrong will never make any sense other than this... all this is about beating baby seals and REMOVING the risk involved in doing it.

Not making the argument here that picking is wrong. Trying to make the case for "clearing" (shooting the guy off one's Six) as opposed to "picking" (shooting the guy off one's Twelve). And that team can survive a furball much better than a lone wolf. And not by running but by fighting to success through effective tactics. 

If we want "good fights" that are challenging, we all know who those people that give us the great 1v1s are and we can usually find one of them on and ask to duel.

1v1s are fine, but 3v3 and 4v3 and 3v2s are all fun and can only be found in the MA. I think with a little organized discipline the MA can be a great place for the kind of multi plane/multi type match ups that the DA can't produce. I think a well practiced squad could take on superior numbers in a furball and not lose a pilot. That should be the goal.

I've had some great fights with you and they have always been in the vicinity of a lot of action. I remember good guys and bad guys flying all around us. I never asked for help and apparently you didn't either. These fights were as intense as they were because there was a high risk of getting picked. Take that away and they might have still been good fights, but they wouldn't have been great.

I Agree 

[Wiley]

1v1s are fine, but 3v3 and 4v3 and 3v2s are all fun and can only be found in the MA. I think with a little organized discipline the MA can be a great place for the kind of multi plane/multi type match ups that the DA can't produce. I think a well practiced squad could take on superior numbers in a furball and not lose a pilot. That should be the goal.

While I dislike the word 'should' being applied to gameplay, I think it's one of the better goals to shoot for.  Even just running as a wing pair creates a lot of fun.

Wiley.

[Nath[BDP]]

laff

[Changeup]

The only worthwhile stat is hit % = how quickly you can kill.  In our MA environment, a good shot = get home more often than not.

(Not your hit% of the 5th of the month, your hit% at the end of the tour)

[Nath[BDP]]

kill per time

[Changeup]

kill per time

Kill per time is a direct result of hit% much like the short game in golf.  If you can't hit anything, your kill per time will be non-existent. 

[bj229r]

The only worthwhile stat is hit % = how quickly you can kill.  In our MA environment, a good shot = get home more often than not.

(Not your hit% of the 5th of the month, your hit% at the end of the tour)

how can you compare hit% in a jug vs a K4?

[LCADolby]

I thought I'd pull this off the JG5 Forum while Vinkman is talking about wingmen.

Wingmen
Due to the increasing out numbered fights we are facing in the MA it is important to try and go with a wingman.
However do not blame your wingman for your death should you get shot down. Ultimately your 6 is your own responsibility

[Fish42]

how can you compare hit% in a jug vs a K4?

Or a 12 gun hurricane with a 152?

And Kill per time is also based on when you get to fly. some nights I can hover over enemy fields for 1 hour and not have a single con up.

[Changeup]

Or a 12 gun hurricane with a 152?

And Kill per time is also based on when you get to fly. some nights I can hover over enemy fields for 1 hour and not have a single con up.

Lately I've been flying the K4 and I have found two things that K4 pilots I know are good, agree with:

1.  Learn to shoot the tater and suffer in wing mounted birds for a while (Scotch, Krup, Redbull, Kappa)
2.  Learn to shoot something, anything well and your hit% will go up and you can dispatch people faster

It's not about comparisons of how difficult one bird shoots over another.  It's about getting a high hit% in the bird you fly.  Level of difficulty has nothing to do with the value hit% has on your survivability.

[Nath[BDP]]

Kill per time is a direct result of hit% much like the short game in golf.  If you can't hit anything, your kill per time will be non-existent.  

I don't understand.  Plainly in terms of AH statistics, hit % is merely the % of your bullets fired that hit something.  

Kill per time is how quickly you can get kills.

Player A can have a Kill per time of 15 and have a 20% hit percentage

Player B can have a kill per time of 15 and have a 10% hit percentage

They are not related when it comes to calculating the stats.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I've always thought.

[kappa]

I don't understand.  Plainly in terms of AH statistics, hit % is merely the % of your bullets fired that hit something.  

Kill per time is how quickly you can get kills.

Player A can have a Kill per time of 15 and have a 20% hit percentage

Player B can have a kill per time of 15 and have a 10% hit percentage

They are not related when it comes to calculating the stats.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I've always thought.

original topic is lol..

player A will have a higher rank if that is what you mean by 'stats'..

[ink]

I don't understand.  Plainly in terms of AH statistics, hit % is merely the % of your bullets fired that hit something.  

Kill per time is how quickly you can get kills.

Player A can have a Kill per time of 15 and have a 20% hit percentage

Player B can have a kill per time of 15 and have a 10% hit percentage

They are not related when it comes to calculating the stats.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I've always thought.

it seems what he is saying, is a better hit% will increase your kill/time/sortie

which I agree with, hit% is the most crucial aspect of Dogfighting, if you cant hit what you aim for it is moot how much ACM/SA matters