This is the root of the whole argument. The philosophical soul of our game so to say. One side believes in winning at all costs because it's your fault if you loose the fight. The other side believes in winning with a set of rules imposed or unspoken to define fights in a manner that all participants are striving for a demonstration of shared skill sets. Kind of like the European rules of dueling pre 19th century, rather than using any advantage to slaughter each other. How the British felt at Freemans Farm when Morgan's snipers took out officers anywhere they saw them beyond the tactical ability of the common smooth bore muskets. It was the officers fault for being on the battle field that day which got them killed using the argument de jur in this HOing post.
No one is going to win this argument. Though the ability to stick it to an ACM vet with impunity will resonate with the less skilled 80%. ACM skill takes time to perfect which creates a strong personal investment for it's future in the game. Accurate frontal quarter shots can be taught in a few evenings which is about the limit of the 80%s attention span.
Skyyr should have distributed a gunsight along with his long post on how to perform the deed. That's the problem with many of the 80%. They really want pictures and something that reduces the walls of text down to point here and click. And a constant willingness to tell or demonstrate to any and everybody how to do the deed. But, if every no skilled flying bait could do it, then no one would be safe from having their version of ACM stopped before it ever gets started.
Indiana Jones would be proud.
So would Harrison Ford. He had dysentery that day. He was so sick, there was no way he could perform. Pulling his gun and shooting the swordsman was unscripted. He was getting ready to call it and walk off the set for the day when he was standing there for that scene. Lucas couldn't have planned a better scene and acting by Harrison.
Bustr,
All movie analogies and actor diseases aside, HOing or not HOing is simply a personal preference for everyone, one way or the other. All of us could give filmed and recounted examples where we HO'd, we GOT Ho'd, many vs few, few vs many, bad angles, good angles, mistakes made, forced others to make mistakes, ad nauseum. Some very great sticks HO regulary...as a matter of practice.
For me the difference between losing to a good fight and losing to a HO is disappointment. I'm not mad, I'm not upset...I'm simply disappointed that my opponent CHOSE to pull the trigger head on. I don't think its a failing on the community, lol, a failing on the person who chooses to HO. I also believe it to be a viable guns solution in RL...albeit a very low probability, dangerous tactic. Moreover, when you see your opponent falling on you OR pulling for a HO, most of the time (no, I don't care what Violator espouses. He has his dreams and realities and I have mine) avoiding the HOer puts you in a terrible position after the HO by virtue of loss in alt or E unless you are already in a position of advantage (coming down with E or going up with plenty of E). They could have just as easily pulled for an angle that would have put them in a positive or at worst, neutral position of advantage.
I will always ask: If you choose to HO regularly as a matter of your personal gaming preference, how will you really know how good you are at ACM? That is my only question and my only position in this little discussion.
A good example that is easy to understand for most people is this (yes it is a sporting example as defined below):
1 sport verb \ˈspȯrt\
: to wear (something) in a way that attracts attention
:
to play in a happy and lively way
Full Definition of SPORT
intransitive verb
1
a : to amuse oneself : frolic
b : to engage in a sport
2
a : to mock or ridicule something
b : to speak or act in jest : trifle
3
[2sport] : to deviate or vary abruptly from type (as by bud variation) : mutate
Kruel and I go golfing (he'll go with me because
I will buy him beer and pay for his round of golf) and we decide upfront to move the ball on the ground one club length to improve our lies. That is agreed upon and ok to do in a friendly round of golf. Kruel chooses to play his ball DOWN (meaning he will play it wherever it lies) and not improve his lie. Kruel will know exactly how well he golfed that day right?. I chose to improve my lie. There is an agreed advantage I chose to accept. Whether I won or Kruel won doesn't matter. The game could be played with or without the advantage and I would submit to Skyyr's argument: HOing is an advantage when done first and accurately. But so is improving your lie in golf however you'll never know how well you really golf if you are constantly giving yourself an advantage.
The only issue with this example is defining rules. In golf there are many and all can be foregone at the outset. In this game there are none but we all have a sense of what defines skill and where each of us are on the AH skill chart without anyone really needing to tell us and we personally define that by HOW we record our victories. It also shows on what we decide to defend as tactics, skills and reality. Your choices are not my choices or anyone elses...they are simply yours. Measured against each of our set of game values, we are all entitled to our opinions of one another's choices and what they say about that specific person. It doesn't make it right. It just makes it our own.
