Ethics of HO Shooting.....

[Zerstorer]

A.  I wasn't talking to you.  I quoted Bustr.  I'm sure he's thrilled you answered for him.
B.  I never mentioned "fault" or failure.  You have decided to make that the crux of an argument no one is having.  It must be to prove a point no one is trying to make, thus, you win.
C.  The C47 was a counter-analogy, again, to Bustr's Sword vs pistol example.  At 40 yards against a pistol, having a sword is like having nothing so there is no purposeful flaw.

FYI - By your arguing skills, you won no debates.  It was even a poor misdirection attempt for one very large reason.  My plane and your plane BOTH have guns.  Bustr's analogy was weak and useless and was a failed attempt to prove climbing into claw boxes and pulling guns against swords is clever.  You should stick to drawing pictures to be funny.  You do that better than you type.

Thank you...I found the picture amusing as well. Ive always found the best humor is to lampoon reality....

I have won ever single arguement Ive ever had with you on this subject. Its rather easy to do. You attempt to misdirect at every turn but my answers are the always the same and you have no answer for them.

Ive never, btw, stated I expect you or others to agree with my views. I agree with you everyone's views are their own and I fully support you having your own opinions....that doesn't, however, equate to accepting them to be true or not pointing out the flaws in your philosophy.

[Canspec]

Air combat manoeuvring (also spelled: air combat maneuvering, or ACM) is the art of manoeuvring a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft

The point of ACM is to kill the opponent. Flying for any other purpose is not ACM.

This is not entirely true. Flying to not be killed is also considered ACM.

[Changeup]

Air combat manoeuvring (also spelled: air combat maneuvering, or ACM) is the art of manoeuvring a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft

The point of ACM is to kill the opponent. Flying for any other purpose is not ACM.

Perfect definition.

By virtue of Fulcrums excellent charts showing other games acceptance of 360 degrees of potential target and combining that with your textbook definition, one can logically arrive at one conclusion:

It is far more difficult to use ACM to maneuver into a position to hit 5-10 degrees of a circle than 360 degrees of a circle.  

See?  The Damned and AOM worked perfectly together to logically arrive at an answer.  What part of the circle one chooses to try to hit is now immaterial and irrelevant.  It does however, logically represent ones ACM skill.

[Changeup]

Thank you...I found the picture amusing as well. Ive always found the best humor is to lampoon reality....

I have won ever single arguement Ive ever had with you on this subject. Its rather easy to do. You attempt to misdirect at every turn but my answers are the always the same and you have no answer for them.

Ive never, btw, stated I expect you or others to agree with my views. I agree with you everyone's views are their own and I fully support you having your own opinions....that doesn't, however, equate to accepting them to be true or not pointing out the flaws in your philosophy.

Win or lose Fulcrum, simply because you have a view or differing philosophy doesn't make you right.  It only makes it yours, lol.  You wouldn't agree even if you knew you were wrong, lol

[Skyyr]

It does however, logically represent ones ACM skill.

Actually, per your own statement, all that matters is the ability to attack. Ergo, whoever is more successful in attacking and killing would theoretically have more skill, since relative position is not a requirement of ACM; only the ability to create an attack is important.

[Changeup]

Actually, per your own statement, all that matters is the ability to attack. Ergo, whoever is more successful in attacking and killing would theoretically have more skill, since relative position is not a requirement of ACM; only the ability to create an attack is important.

I never made that statement.  Please cite the link.

[Skyyr]

I never made that statement.  Please cite the link.

You said this:

Perfect definition.

You said this was a perfect definition. Let's look up "perfect":

adjective
ˈpərfikt/
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Since this definition was perfect per your own voluntary statement, there can be no possible missing elements to it. The definition, therefore, is complete.

However, you then tried to arbitrarily apply weight to where an opponent was shot, directly contradicting your above statement:

What part of the circle one chooses to try to hit is now immaterial and irrelevant.  It does however, logically represent ones ACM skill.

No portion of the ACM definition defines skill as being able to attack a specific "part [of the circle]," as you stated (see the bolded portion of your reply). Since you agreed on the definition, you must prove where the definition of ACM states that shooting an opponent in certain locations is an indicator of skill.

However, I can save you the time and state upfront that ACM places no weight whatsoever on where a shot is taken. This is evident not only in virtually every other online sim (where most players would mock you endlessly for complaining about ANY taken shot), but also in current USAF doctrine, as passing up a front-quarter shot can actually put the pilot into a less favorable position due to modern weapons envelopes and plane performance. Front-quarter shots are quite literally encouraged when available.

The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, not the other way around.

[Changeup]

No portion of the ACM definition requires position or attacking a specific "part [of the circle]," as you stated (see the bolded portion of your reply). Since you agreed on the definition, you must prove where the definition states this is a requirement of showing skill. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, not the other way around.

If you need me to prove the obvious, lol, ok.  

360 degrees of target is a larger target than 5-10 degrees of a target.  In layman's terms, since you need me to say it, hitting a one, window barn anywhere vs. the single window on the barn, only in our case, the barn is moving the window away from you.  

Its easier for you to hit the the moving barn anywhere on it than to hit the single window while the barn is trying to keep it away from you.  Maneuvering for a firing solution on 360 degrees of a moving target is easier than maneuvering for a firing solution on a specified 5-10 degree area of a moving target (Edit: which is EXACTLY why the USAF encourages front quarter shots.  Its easier and they don't want pilots to die).  I don't feel like that was much of a brainbuster, however, you've been obliged.  

The question still remains, is HOing wrong or right?  And the answer is.....it depends on your personal goals.  It just takes less skill as defined by Fulcrum's charts and your ACM definition.

 EDIT:

Quote from: Skyyr on Today at 09:39:50 PM

Air combat manoeuvring (also spelled: air combat maneuvering, or ACM) is the art of manoeuvring a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft

The point of ACM is to kill the opponent. Flying for any other purpose is not ACM.

THE definition.  Not YOUR definition.  Key word, maneuvering.  

[guncrasher]

all this nonsense stupid ethics on a game remind me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvSZ_HQmZgQ


semp

[Skyyr]

360 degrees of target is a larger target than 5-10 degrees of a target.  In layman's terms, since you need me to say it, hitting a one, window barn anywhere vs. the single window on the barn, only in our case, the barn is moving the window away from you.  

Your barn analogy is what we call accuracy. This has virtually no correlation to our example, because hitting anywhere on the barn would suffice, as would hitting a window. If hitting ANYWHERE on the barn would serve as a sufficient hit, then anything else more granular than the side of the barn is unneccessary. Now, you may pride yourself as the best window-hitter in your county, but that has no intrinsic value, as your best shot is only as good as the worst person who managed to even barely hit the barn.

This is the absurdity of your argument. You're claiming that because you enjoy hitting a window, that it takes more skill when the end result is absolutely identical to anyone else who managed to even graze an edge of the barn. Unless your approach shows better results than someone else's, it's no different.

Its easier for you to hit the the moving barn anywhere on it than to hit the single window while the barn is trying to keep it away from you.  Maneuvering for a firing solution on 360 degrees of a moving target is easier than maneuvering for a firing solution on a specified 5-10 degree area of a moving target (Edit: which is EXACTLY why the USAF encourages front quarter shots.  Its easier and they don't want pilots to die).  I don't feel like that was much of a brainbuster, however, you've been obliged.  

It actually has nothing to do with being easy, but rather it's done to prevent showing aircraft aspect to the enemy where additional weapons can be used (such as heat-seeking missles).

The question still remains, is HOing wrong or right?  And the answer is.....it depends on your personal goals.  It just takes less skill as defined by Fulcrum's charts and your ACM definition.

It was never in question, unless your only experience is this game and you ignore history and aerial warfare doctrine.

That said...

You repeatedly keep pressing that maneuvering your aircraft into a specific position is required. It is, in fact, not. All that is required is to have position to take a shot, the position itself matters little.

Nowhere in the definition is skill stated to be based on position - that is your opinion. Let's stick to facts, please.

[Zerstorer]

Win or lose Fulcrum, simply because you have a view or differing philosophy doesn't make you right.  It only makes it yours, lol.  You wouldn't agree even if you knew you were wrong, lol

No sir. Im always willihg to admit I am wrong when proven so.

The issue that elludes you is the whole concept of self responsibility. You are right you didnt bring up "fault"...I did. Per your philosophic outlook if a person doesnt follow the rules of engement as defined by you then any victory they achieve over you is null and void. YOU define his success or failure and none of the blame is on your own assumptions or actions.

The added benefit is that mindset acts as a salve for egos who cant handle that their "superior skillz" couldnt save them from their own mistakes.  Mistakes which led to their dying from the simplist of shots that even a "noob" can make.

I can tell you I've known several players who have joined this game from other simulations only to leave because they got very tired of hearing the same whiner crap when they killed guys like AOM.  Pity...we could have used the new blood.

Using your definition...everyone should fly like there are Star Trek deflector shields on the opponents plane which cover every part except the rear. How does this define greater skill when it is far harder to fly and fight with no "shields " at all? i.e. it is far harder to defend and/or attack when YOU can be attacked from ANY quarter.

[bustr]

At least everyone is arguing like a fighter pilot over fighter pilot kind of game things. None of you can back down because there is no way to walk away that doesn't translate as defeat. Just like the good old days when the muppets flew these forums scorching the earth.

Be careful, don't poke any eyes out, and be mindful of waking up the Skuzzyzilla.

[Brooke]

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?

To me (and I've been playing WWII on-line air combat since 1988, so I'm about as opposite a newb as there can be), a shot is a shot.  You take it if you feel like it, and if you hit the other guy, then his complaint about it is just the whining of a sissy! 

Most people can avoid head-on shots unless they are floundering around at 100 mph, so either way, if they get shot, it is their own fault.

A lot of people in the game will complain about any disadvantage they feel in the process of getting shot.  Don't let it bother you.  Fly how you'd like, and shoot the bad guy if you have a good shot.

[Zimme83]

In fact, most of the fundamental rules and tactics used during WW2 is considered lame play in AH, Trying to get the alt advantage for example (alt monkeys). Sailor Malan had a few rules that includes: Height gives you the initiative. and Always turn and face the attack So get in high and HO if attacked...
Hans-Joachim Marseille made the front quarter shot his specialty, The Tach Weave includes front quarter shots and i would like to be here when someone come up with a figher squadron that works as a team, top cover and everything...

[Kruel]

For Pete's sake ChangeUp quit trying to take me on a date..I told you I don't swing that way.