Ethics of HO Shooting.....

[Skyyr]

Gosh darn it, Skyyr!  You got me good with that one!  Although I'm not sure how us fighting is going to prove the lameness/non-lameness of relying on face shooting.  In the context of this discussion, it leads me to believe you're worried you're losing the argument, so you're forced to throw some pwnage my way hoping I'll get all embarrassed and stuff.  Good timing, but predictable.  I saw it from 2k out.      

I'd be happy to DA with you, though.  It can even be "friendly" and stuff.  I won't even send stern PM's to people if you tell them you beat me... I swear.  I'm a really nice guy... seriously, ask anyone... they'll tell ya.  Well, don't ask Arlo.  He thinks I'm mean, but he's like the only one I think.

 

Again, you're putting words where they don't belong. I've not advocated relying on HO'ing once, I simply agree with both history and established ACM doctrine that a front-quarter shot is a viable tactic. Likewise, I rely neither on turnfighting, energy fighting, or any other tactic - I simply use the most efficient method available at the time to shoot down my opponent.

If I can kill you in 10 seconds using a front-quarter shot, instead of wasting 90 seconds to maneuver around and shoot you down, then guess what? I'm going to shoot you the second your front-quarter presents itself instead of wasting an additional minute or more to the same end, provided it won't put me in a disadvantaged position. I'm simply not interested in wasting any more time than the minimum that is required to kill you, because you're just that: another kill. The faster I can kill you, the faster I can kill the next guy. And so on and so forth.

ACM is about one thing: shooting down the opponent. It's not about sportsmanship or having fun or creating an enjoyable environment where all can sing kumbaya; it's about killing the guy in front of you and getting him out of your way. Ergo, I will always pursue the kill per the function of ACM.

Now, if you don't enjoy or agree with that - that's fine; you're free to do that. I have no intention of trying to force you to hold my views valid, nor I yours. The truth, however, is that you have no weight behind your argument other than your own personal preference, while I have nearly 70 years of military training materials and history supporting my stance. For whatever reason, you seem determined to try to prove it's "lame" (your words), while I'm content to simply view them for what they are and could care less whether you use them or not. This leads me to believe that you've never played any other air combat sim at a competitive level and that your only accomplishments are cold merge tactics in Aces High, but I digress.

Our duels proved that even for someone like myself who takes front-quarter shots in the MA, they were neither used nor needed to defeat you. The difference, yet again, is that while I utilize them in the MA, I didn't use or even need them to beat you; while you, someone who adamantly portrays them as a tactic used by the less-than skilled, still lost against someone who supposedly "relies" on them even when they weren't used. That is what we call irrefutable evidence that your position is flawed.

 

[bozon]

Youtube search...winging with Kruel. Warhed HO'ING in a mossie classic

I'm fairly certain I've never actually complained about being HO'd. In fact, I'm virtually never even upset by it. I think my worst reaction is something on the order of saying "awww man!," and that isn't even in response to the tactic, but rather that I was hit by it.

That's the difference with us, though; we don't necessarily have to agree with something to see it's validity. For example, Kruel may not like getting HO'd or HO'ing (not that he does or doesn't), but that doesn't mean he's going to be biased and decry a valid tactic.

This is typically with people possessing both education and integrity.

So, I followed JunkyII's advice and found this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IsGvv3DNs

It is kind of funny to hear Kruel complaining about HOs while Skyyr is taking multiple HO shots and wins them (incl. on the mossie they were talking about). Not front quarter shots - classic HO duels where both are shooting at each other starting at more than 1000 yards out.

Also, perhaps someone can explain this to me (a bit off topic):
Skyyr is locking every target he is about to shoot at. Pretty amazing shooting by the way, far beyond my level. The only use that I know to this function in the game is to be able to use the pad-lock view, which he does not seem to use and the other is the lead-computing gun sight, which is disabled in the MA and does not appear in the vid. So why? is there another use for this?

[SPKmes]

.

[Skyyr]

Also, perhaps someone can explain this to me (a bit off topic):
Skyyr is locking every target he is about to shoot at. Pretty amazing shooting by the way, far beyond my level. The only use that I know to this function in the game is to be able to use the pad-lock view, which he does not seem to use and the other is the lead-computing gun sight, which is disabled in the MA and does not appear in the vid. So why? is there another use for this?

Honest answer? Because we routinely engage in few vs many fights (plain English: we're commonly outnumbered). This means that many times, we're fighting multiples with no one to pick up the extra bandits.

When you're in this scenario, it becomes important to be able to identify who you're engaged with. If I'm fighting two aircraft at the same time, say, a 109K and a 109G2, the 109K is the primary threat. If both aircraft have an E advantage and both are going in and out of icon range, it can be easy to mix up identification of the aircraft, especially if other bandits enter the fight. Outside of ID range, both aircraft will show as "109."

"Tagging" the bandit (as we call it) with the padlock brackets allows you to retain visual confirmation of where your primary threat (or engaged target) is at, even if you look away and lose line of sight with the target.

In the 109 scenario, tagging the 109K allows me to forget about maintaining 100% visual contact to maintain ID. This also allows me to decide what tactics to use as they come back in several thousand yards out, even if I've lost visual contact and can't manually confirm which 109 is inbound.

I just do it out of habit with every target, whether 1v1 or 1v5, etc.

Another winging example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5zvkXmyxUE

[Triton28]

Again, you're putting words where they don't belong. I've not advocated relying on HO'ing once, I simply agree with both history and established ACM doctrine that a front-quarter shot is a viable tactic. Likewise, I rely neither on turnfighting, energy fighting, or any other tactic - I simply use the most efficient method available at the time to shoot down my opponent.

You may not be advocating it in so many words, but you're championing the use of it here and seem to choose that tactic in the MA more than most... especially more than most who now hang their hats on their 1v1 fighting prowess.

If I can kill you in 10 seconds using a front-quarter shot, instead of wasting 90 seconds to maneuver around and shoot you down, then guess what? I'm going to shoot you the second your front-quarter presents itself instead of wasting an additional minute or more to the same end, provided it won't put me in a disadvantaged position.

I can fly just fine without front-quarter shots or HO'ing, as I demonstrated on you 1v1 quite effectively. I'm simply not interested in wasting any more time than the minimum that is required to kill you, because you're just that: another kill. The faster I can kill you, the faster I can kill the next guy. And so on and so forth.

ACM is about one thing: shooting down the opponent. It's not about sportsmanship or having fun or creating an enjoyable environment where all can sing kumbaya; it's about killing the guy in front of you and getting him out of your way. Ergo, I will always pursue the kill per the function of ACM.

So it's all about efficiency to you.  To you the actual engagement is meaningless unless you win?

Now, if you don't enjoy or agree with that - that's fine; you're free to do that. I have no intention of trying to force you to hold my views valid, nor I yours. The truth, however, is that you have no weight behind your argument other than your own personal preference, while I have nearly 70 years of military training materials and history supporting my stance. For whatever reason, you seem determined to try to prove it's "lame" (your words), while I'm content to simply view them for what they are and could care less whether you use them or not. This leads me to believe that you've never played any other air combat sim at a competitive level and that your only accomplishments are cold merge tactics in Aces High, but I digress.

Our duels proved that even for someone like myself who takes front-quarter shots in the MA, they were neither used nor needed to defeat you. The difference, yet again, is that while I utilize them in the MA, I didn't use or even need them to beat you; while you, someone who adamantly portrays them as a tactic used by the less-than skilled, still lost against someone who supposedly "relies" on them even when they weren't used. That is what we call irrefutable evidence that your position is flawed.

 

70 years of military training materials?  Awesome.  Do you get your stick settings from those manuals too?  Does it have anything in there about icon range and what the plus or minus symbol on them mean?   

It's a game dude.  You can be the ruthless HO'ing sack of $%&@ if you want, but don't try to make the act of HO'ing some honorable thing because real men with real lives on the line did it however many times.  Also, don't confuse the act of HO'ing as being one of the least skilled ways of killing people (and thus lameville) with "everyone who HO's, ever, ever, is less than skilled".  It doesn't work that way.  Winning an engagement by playing chicken with bullets is not skillful.  For many of us, it ain't fun either.  For you though... maybe you like it.  You have to like something about it with all the hours you've logged, right?

Our duels proved that on that particular night, you were better at doing what you do than I was.  They don't lend you any credibility (parenthetical conversation time - our duels are irrelevant to this discussion) in anything other than being a good judge of energy and thus being able to stall out after your opponent.  A good skill to have and effective for sure, but if it were me I'd be careful about hanging my hat on it.   

 

[Skyyr]

You may not be advocating it in so many words, but you're championing the use of it here and seem to choose that tactic in the MA more than most... especially more than most who now hang their hats on their 1v1 fighting prowess.

So showing logically why it's a valid tactic, and then demonstrating that I dont need it to win, is "championing the use of it"? Yet again, not true.

I'm more interested in showing HO complaints for what they are (excuses) than I am in championing the use of it, as I've already demonstrated I can fly just fine 1v1 without front-quarter shots.

So it's all about efficiency to you.  To you the actual engagement is meaningless unless you win?

More or less, yes.

70 years of military training materials?  Awesome.  Do you get your stick settings from those manuals too?  Does it have anything in there about icon range and what the plus or minus symbol on them mean?  

It's a game dude.  You can be the ruthless HO'ing sack of $%&@ if you want, but don't try to make the act of HO'ing some honorable thing because real men with real lives on the line did it however many times.  Also, don't confuse the act of HO'ing as being one of the least skilled ways of killing people (and thus lameville) with "everyone who HO's, ever, ever, is less than skilled".  It doesn't work that way.  Winning an engagement by playing chicken with bullets is not skillful.  For many of us, it ain't fun either.  For you though... maybe you like it.  You have to like something about it with all the hours you've logged, right?

So if we can both agree that skilled players can indeed HO, what then is the problem? If you would lose to X player whether they chose to HO you, turnfight you, or energy fight you, what does it matter? In the end, you still lose.

This is the fundamental issue you seem to repeatedly ignore. You are illogically placing some sort of arbitrary weight to your losses based on how you lost, when in reality a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter how you lost, you simply lost.

Also, you've logged many more hours in this game than I have, so I fail to see whatever point you were reaching at.

Our duels proved that on that particular night, you were better at doing what you do than I was.  They don't lend you any credibility (parenthetical conversation time - our duels are irrelevant to this discussion) in anything other than being a good judge of energy and thus being able to stall out after your opponent.  A good skill to have and effective for sure, but if it were me I'd be careful about hanging my hat on it.  

 

Ah, so take away my apparent reliance on HO'ing (again, your words) and now the only reason I won was my energy retention. And this is the core of your argument - you are yet again trying to categorize a loss by creating a singular excuse as to why the other person beat you.

Instead of saying "he only won because he HO'd," now you're saying "he only won because he held his E better." What happens when I beat you in sustained-rate 8-minute-long flat turns (you think E-fights are boring)? Are you going to claim then that I only won because I "flat turned better"?

In the end, it's an excuse, just like complaining about HO'ing is an excuse. ACM provides solutions for virtually every neutral scenario you enter. What happens afterwards is the result of your decisions. If you lose to a HO, or a turnfight, or an E fight, you didn't lose because of your opponent, you lost because you simply failed to apply ACM correctly.

You can't lose because of your opponents actions, you can only lose because of your actions. If you are losing an E fight, it's not because you didn't hold your E well enough, it's because you chose the wrong tactics to start with. Likewise, if you lose to a HO or a turnfight or any other kind of tactic, it's because you chose the wrong tactics.

Really, that's all there is to it.

[Kruel]

Calling warhed a HOing bastage *which he is when in the Mossie* is complaining about all HOers ever..amirite? Mental gymnastics? More like word twister with a side of paraphrasing.


** Spin the wheel **
3 words on green,
Insert an inference about how a person feels with your right foot
Place left foot in mouth

The dirty little secret is that most people just hate to lose Head Ons(or take damage in a head on). But deep down inside its pretty gratifying blowing someone out of the sky and walking away scott free without damage...I have yet to hear "Man, I just beat that Mossie in my 109F in a Head On pass...that sucks..I should just ditch this sortie now because it was so lame"

Like I said I will be sure to be more clear about how I feel in future videos for you..

Side note: My disdain for Mossies is evidently shown at 3:55 when he gets shot down, followed by a sweet whispering "Yessssssss"...lol fun sortie. Thanks for bringing that blast from the past back..you guys are so good at that!

[JunkyII]

Calling warhed a HOing bastage *which he is when in the Mossie* is complaining about all HOers ever..amirite? Mental gymnastics? More like word twister with a side of paraphrasing.


** Spin the wheel **
3 words on green,
Insert an inference about how a person feels with your right foot
Place left foot in mouth

The dirty little secret is that most people just hate to lose Head Ons(or take damage in a head on). But deep down inside its pretty gratifying blowing someone out of the sky and walking away scott free without damage...I have yet to hear "Man, I just beat that Mossie in my 109F in a Head On pass...that sucks..I should just ditch this sortie now because it was so lame"

Like I said I will be sure to be more clear about how I feel in future videos for you..

Side note: My disdain for Mossies is evidently shown at 3:55 when he gets shot down, followed by a sweet whispering "Yessssssss"...lol fun sortie. Thanks for bringing that blast from the past back..you guys are so good at that!

I've had many fights with warhed where he didn't HO in a mossie.....maybe your doing something wrong.

[Lusche]

.

[bozon]

I've had many fights with warhed where he didn't HO in a mossie.....maybe your doing something wrong.

HO in a mossie is not a good tactic. Sure it has the guns for the job, but HTC decided to give it the damage model of the Zeke. 
So, unless you evaporate your opponent from a long distance, you are bound to receive some serious damage in return - that is if you are lucky...

They then gave the Yak3 the damage model of the IL2.

[RELIC]

FINALLY.  An AH BBS discussion on a topic that is frankly WAY overdue.

[Triton28]

So showing logically why it's a valid tactic, and then demonstrating that I dont need it to win, is "championing the use of it"? Yet again, not true.

I'm more interested in showing HO complaints for what they are (excuses) than I am in championing the use of it, as I've already demonstrated I can fly just fine 1v1 without front-quarter shots.

If you don't need to do it... why aren't you doing more with your ACM to avoid having to be a HO'ing sack of $%!@?  Ahhh right... efficiency.  lol

So if we can both agree that skilled players can indeed HO, what then is the problem? If you would lose to X player whether they chose to HO you, turnfight you, or energy fight you, what does it matter? In the end, you still lose.

SunsFan has beat me senseless every time I've fought him.  SunsFan is a better pilot than me.  In every part of toon airmanship, he's better.  I'm going to be disappointed if I fight SunsFan and he chooses to take those shots... mainly because I know he can beat me without it, but for some reason he's taking the lazy way out.  It's not sporting, but if you don't care about that...

This is the fundamental issue you seem to repeatedly ignore. You are illogically placing some sort of arbitrary weight to your losses based on how you lost, when in reality a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter how you lost, you simply lost.

Also, you've logged many more hours in this game than I have, so I fail to see whatever point you were reaching at.

You don't analyze film and make judgements of why/how you won or lost?

I'm saying that you've logged a ton of hours since you've been playing.  I don't care to analyze it or compare, but I'd bet you're easily in the top 10%.  I cannot believe you're not having fun or doing things you like to do with that much time in the game.

Ah, so take away my apparent reliance on HO'ing (again, your words) and now the only reason I won was my energy retention. And this is the core of your argument - you are yet again trying to categorize a loss by creating a singular excuse as to why the other person beat you.

Instead of saying "he only won because he HO'd," now you're saying "he only won because he held his E better." What happens when I beat you in sustained-rate 8-minute-long flat turns (you think E-fights are boring)? Are you going to claim then that I only won because I "flat turned better"?

In the end, it's an excuse, just like complaining about HO'ing is an excuse. ACM provides solutions for virtually every neutral scenario you enter. What happens afterwards is the result of your decisions. If you lose to a HO, or a turnfight, or an E fight, you didn't lose because of your opponent, you lost because you simply failed to apply ACM correctly.

You can't lose because of your opponents actions, you can only lose because of your actions. If you are losing an E fight, it's not because you didn't hold your E well enough, it's because you chose the wrong tactics to start with. Likewise, if you lose to a HO or a turnfight or any other kind of tactic, it's because you chose the wrong tactics.

Really, that's all there is to it.

You have no idea what's in store.   

[Kruel]

I am going to guess it has something to do with a video of a Muppet killing Skyyr or Me but that Muppet wont be you or it will be a shade...I am just guessing though. You're right I really don't have any idea..the suspense is killing me!

What ever shall I do?! Will it be too much to bear?! Will the embarrassment make me quit the game?! I literally spend hours up at night just worrying about it. Put me out of my misery once and for all..

[JunkyII]

HO in a mossie is not a good tactic. Sure it has the guns for the job, but HTC decided to give it the damage model of the Zeke. 
So, unless you evaporate your opponent from a long distance, you are bound to receive some serious damage in return - that is if you are lucky...

They then gave the Yak3 the damage model of the IL2.

Your absolutely right. The planes that are harder to hit (190) or the tough birds (il2) are the planes to HO in if your going to do it.

Still ruins a fight don't matter what plane your in.

[BiPoLaR]

Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no. I am a newbi so forgive me. Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them. What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault?  I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?

Its a cartoon world. There are no "ethics". Fly how you want. I did and smacked around 99% of these guys.