The HO

[Arlo]

Torgo,

No, it's far from new.

If you do a search you'll find threads from the first days of beta on the HO topic.

There were the "men of honor" who would never EVER shoot while going nose to nose.

They generally labeled anyone who took any shot from anywhere in the front hemisphere as "no talent, no acm, no honor dweebs" as well as any other disparaging label they could think of at the time.

The threads are probably still there. Try searching for HO or H/O or Headon and then pick the oldest threads that show up.

I guess they never figured out that proper use of the stick and rudder allows evasion 95% of all true HO's.

Also, lots of them never figured out that the HO they saw on their FE was a fat, juicy, perfectly safe front quarter shot on the other guys FE due to net lag or view differences.

Those old threads can be entertaining reading. 

[FLS]

Yes and most of us "old timers" do just that. The point is that a "trainer" was telling a new player to HO. It is a bad way to teach any one to fight. Learning bad habits from the start isnt going to help improve your fighting down the road.

It is far better to teach the list you provided and encourage new players to take their licks and stick with it. As nrshida said putting yourself in front of anyone guns is a poor way to start a fight, but a great to end one.

Scare quotes on trainer?  You have an issue with his qualifications? 

If a player requests help with front aspect shots should the trainer refuse to help?

[The Fugitive]

Scare quotes on trainer?  You have an issue with his qualifications? 

If a player requests help with front aspect shots should the trainer refuse to help?

I used quotes because Im not sure if he still is a trainer.

If a player asks for help in "front aspect shots" the trainer should be pointing out how and why he screwed up to get into that position and suggest ways to avoid getting into, and out of that position, not give the advice "go for the HO".

If you are in a poor position why waste the time and energy "going for the HO" when that time and energy could be better used to get yourself OUT of trouble.

The only time a player should think about going for the HO, is when they are in the tower after being shot down and thinking..... "damn! I should have tried a HO!"   

[Oldman731]

If a player requests help with front aspect shots should the trainer refuse to help?

I suggest "yes" for the answer.  If a player requests help for presenting the best possible target to his opponent, should the trainer assist?

If a squad asks a trainer for assistance in ganging a solo enemy, should the trainer refuse to help?

I've never been a trainer, so I don't know if there are any trainer guidelines.  Should a trainer help a player remain less competent?  Should a trainer encourage poor sportsmanship?  I really don't know.

Kind of interested to hear if there are such guidelines, actually.

- oldman

[FLS]

Junky said he's talking about Rodent57,who's currently the head trainer and an actual fighter pilot with 35 years experience training real fighter pilots. I expect he understands the pro's and cons of head on shots sufficiently to train virtual pilots playing a game.

When you look at the result of no-ho merges the newbie loses every time. The only shot he has a chance of connecting is the head on shot at the merge. When the slightly skilled player whines about getting shot head on by a newbie and claims he's only interested in helping the newbie I tend to doubt their motivation.

When you are in a poor position, shooting the bandit down is the best way to get out of trouble.

[FLS]

I suggest "yes" for the answer.  If a player requests help for presenting the best possible target to his opponent, should the trainer assist?

If a squad asks a trainer for assistance in ganging a solo enemy, should the trainer refuse to help?

I've never been a trainer, so I don't know if there are any trainer guidelines.  Should a trainer help a player remain less competent?  Should a trainer encourage poor sportsmanship?  I really don't know.

Kind of interested to hear if there are such guidelines, actually.

- oldman

If a player asks loaded questions should the trainer respond politely or just ignore him? 

[Oldman731]

If a player asks loaded questions should the trainer respond politely or just ignore him?

Heh.  Seems to me the reverse is also true; that is, if a trainer asks a loaded rhetorical question...

One way or the other, I imagine that someone confident of his position might answer the question, loaded or not.

- oldman

[FLS]

The guideline, so to speak, is to help the player with their request.

[nrshida]

When you look at the result of no-ho merges the newbie loses every time.

That's because he's new not because he hasn't mastered the art of the HO yet. Where exactly is it specified that a new player has any right or necessity to expect more immediate success against players who are more advanced in applying the tenets of a complex topic?

When the slightly skilled player whines about getting shot head on by a newbie and claims he's only interested in helping the newbie I tend to doubt their motivation.

And you are right to do so. Only what you describe is an edge case not the mainstream situation and not the case here.

I expect he understands the pro's and cons of head on shots sufficiently to train virtual pilots playing a game.

Naturally I'm going to regret this as the usual troll-monkeys are already no doubt scampering around their opera box girding their loins like Waldorf and Statler for another bloody good session of peanut throwing. But I feel obliged to point out the subtle but significant difference between real air combat, and Aces High. I've naturally not been to Top Gun being as I am merely a hobbyist dogfighter but I'm pretty sure their syllabus was focused on making the enemy go away forever rather bloody quickly. Whereas in Aces High we'd ideally like them to stick around for several years and join our insane celebration of rickety old prop-driven combat aircraft and what our simulations of those can do in an evolutionary dead end branch of air combat while an arbitrary pointless simulated war rages beneath (or indeed in another virtual arena): for entertainment.

The guideline, so to speak, is to help the player with their request.

Just try at least for 13 nanoseconds to consider the following as it is intended and not as the personal attack I am so often / easily accused of:-

If the AH trainers are overly reactive to the whims of trending culture then any active living ACM in this game may dilute away until only a small handful of diehards remain until even they grow tired of easy kills and / or otherwise retire. I have already observed it to some extent in my short time here as the values changed. Is it not more sensible for both new players and the long term health of the game as a whole to actually promote advancing ACM as the way forward? If you guys aren't going to take this initiative - with your combined knowledge, expertise and position of 'authority' - then who is?
 

[Arlo]

Just try at least for 13 nanoseconds to consider the following as it is intended and not as the personal attack I am so often / easily accused of:-

On-topic discussion is less likely to be taken as a personal attack (even if it is overly-dramatic about the subject) than, say, deciding to include what someone does, apart from the game, in a diatribe specifically aimed at that person. Just sayin'*.

 

[nrshida]

On-topic discussion is less likely to be taken as a personal attack

The hallmark of a shida post is quickly hurt feelings and projection.

This seems to be gravitating toward personal issues, shida

Word has it that NrShida has been offered a trainer's slot.

overly-dramatic about the subject

[Arlo]

I deleted and apologized for the first one. I even deleted the second, though it was merely an honest observation about you treading toward personal attack ground that could result in thread deletion, if kept up. You were indeed offered a trainer's slot which you should take as an honor (and should consider accepting, given your passion for ACM). The last comment was just about your delivery on the topic at hand. You seem unapologetic on your comments and I didn't really expect one from you. Please continue on the subject of how trainers should train.

[nrshida]

When you refrain from the behaviour you condone others for, then you are in a position to lecture.

You were indeed offered a trainer's slot

I was not nor would I be suitable for that roll. Too fond of fuedin' and fussy about who I work with.

[Arlo]

When you refrain from the behaviour you condone others for, then you are in a position to lecture.

Methinks you meant to type 'chastise.' And I've apologized then refrained in this very thread.

Having said that, if you admit you're not suitable to be a trainer, yourself, how does that justify your chastisement of Rodent57 (or any other trainer)? The time of these individuals is no more precious than yours or Junky's or anyone's.

I was not nor would I be suitable for that roll. Too fond of fuedin' and fussy about who I work with.

My apologies for misunderstanding ....

You're suggesting people like Junky and I, say, should just hand over knowledge and technique it took hundreds of deaths and countless hours of reading, experimentation and practice to acquire to those who show absolutely no active interest in learning or working, while simultaneously being insulted and disrespected by those with no willingness or clue how to do said work themselves and who are at the same time so vitriolically bitter towards those that have, that the only conclusion can be people like Junky and I are only contributing to the discussion (about ACM, I'll remind you) in order that we can have you all worship us as some fictional movie characters from a space opera or Kung Fu movie.

Might I respectfully suggest, however, that faith without action is useless or rather if you're not willing to productively chase your goal then complaining about the situation at hand (on the forums) becomes nothing more than an act of utmost futility.

Still, my best to you and may you find contentment.

[waystin2]

I avoid them for one reason only: it usually damages my plane.  My biggest joy is FSO and scenarios-a place where killing the other guy and living is rewarded.  So I try use the MA as a gym of sorts to stay trained up with those ends in mind.  Head on shots are a very poor decision if you want to get your plane home.  In FSO/Scenarios often times you and your squad mates are 3,4 even 5 sectors deep in enemy territory and nursing a damaged bird back home may be impossible.  This also adds a burden to the entire squad having to watch out for you because you made a poor decision.  I do not see Head-On passes as a choice between good or bad ACM, I see them as a low probability of you flying your plane away with kill and a working airplane.