Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: moot on June 22, 2009, 05:40:19 PM
-
Same story as last time...
F4U1A, 110G, 1:1, 4'40" (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/film2_H51_HO_0025.ahf) This one's admittedly closer to being reprehensible, if there's such a thing. But IMO not a "bad" HO. Because I earned the right to end the fight. Hog had at least 2 opportunities and didn't make em count, and I had 2.5 killshots before it, the .5 (3min40s) being me looking over the nose knowing the target is down there, but not wanting to end the fight there, I don't go for the shot up as I could have by rolling left then right and ruddering the nose out of the way to head into the snapshot with a view. Instead I only look over the nose on the way back up.
I take the shot at the end because however much I've earned the kill up to then, the 110G's already exhausted its potential against the F4U flap machine.
Verdict? Constructive critiques only please.
p.s. H5117: as you can see, 3 shot opportunities (1'58", 2'30" with a big e-bleeding jink but its right there point blank, and 3'40") before the kill shot. And you could've just gone up instead of panic split-s'ing at the start. That split-s is one of the easiest shots you can give the 110G. If it hadn't been me, you'd've been dead right there.
-
Great Fight! The final shot is Head On but I wouldn't consider it a "HO" That was a clean kill performed after a great fight. more of a scissor kill than a 'HO'. Its true it would have been a whole different fight had the f4u looped in the beginning rather than split S. and you sucked him into the rope a dope a few times. I was dying for you to squeeze the trigger. In all I say good fight. Of course its easier to watch a film and a play critic than it is to actuallt do the flying, I think I would have died too if I were in the f4u.
:salute to both pilots
-
Him makum pretty light up in sky.
-
Nice fight! :x
-
Good fight m00t i enjoy watching your videos posted on the forums <S> however it was a HO but he did have 3 shots on you and miss so not really a Ho lol
-
lol and if it the other guy who posted this it woulda been a whole nother story
-
Why is HO'ing a bad thing? I've been flying since 04 and aside from it being a bad thing to do on the first pass, a HO in a dogfight isn't something to be frowned upon. When you have the angle and a the gun solution, you take it. I doubt any pilot back in the day would have been that lax.
-
In this situation, I will totally allow a HO shot. He had the right and that's all he was looking for. He was not planning to do it on the first pass, but give the guy the opportunity to try and kill him.
I find HOing a frown :( because most people do it deliberately to kill the guy, with no skill involved. I can point my nose and shoot at people all the time, but it's usually the best sticks that can kill a guy after a fight, from the guys 6. That's what gains respect in my mind, most people don't do it in the MAs anymore, and the only way to beat it now is to pick, and even then your not all that safe.
-
Actually to me thats clearly pilot error on the hogs part. Forgetting the fact U passed on multiple shots he has to respect the fact that he's in what I consider to be a vertical two circle fight which is going to be defined by the intersection point. When he makes the decision to climb up into you he's accepting the reality that either he'll catch you in the arc or he'll end up stalling out as you nose over. Watching it from his view he never had any chance to get the nose up. Basically a canopy shot where he tries to bring the nose up but the angle off was easily 30 degrees or more....he had to get out of dodge early there...
-
thank you
In this situation, I will totally allow a HO shot. He had the right and that's all he was looking for. He was not planning to do it on the first pass, but give the guy the opportunity to try and kill him.
I find HOing a frown :( because most people do it deliberately to kill the guy, with no skill involved. I can point my nose and shoot at people all the time, but it's usually the best sticks that can kill a guy after a fight, from the guys 6. That's what gains respect in my mind, most people don't do it in the MAs anymore, and the only way to beat it now is to pick, and even then your not all that safe.
thank you bosco :salute
-
Its a m00t point.
-
He didn't have a shot and had very little elevator authority at 50 ias to attempt to obtain one.
-
M00T,
I typically hate that shot, but in this case its different. At 1:56 sec into the fight H should have been dead. Simple as that. It was a very nice fight, I even made it in you film!! I seen you two fighting so I stayed out. But anyway, clearly to me you were the winner.
-
lol and if it the other guy who posted this it woulda been a whole nother story
Why?
When he makes the decision to climb up into you he's accepting the reality that either he'll catch you in the arc or he'll end up stalling out as you nose over.
That's what I was thinking when I took the shot.
-
Some really nice aircraft control there, and I guess, could be called a HO by the purists, looked more like putting him out of his misery to me though <G>
Salute
Steely
-
A Ho? Probably, but you earned it fella, he should/would have been dead a lot earlier - but you passed the shot up. He didnt have the control to bring guns to bear on his final lift up, and to me that was a fair and square kill
Nice flying m00t, yet another film of yours added to my training archive.
thankeee sir,
Wurzel
-
moot that was a great fight fun to watch.and i know your 1 of the better sticks in the game.that remark was because ive been acuse of that same shot being ho
-
HAHAHA, you took 200 muppet bantor to a new level, you were calling the shots while fighting on 200 :x that was very good flying on your part and bad on his, if he cant beat you while your typing on 200 to him he deserves the head on if that is one but as Del said that would be a hard one for him to make but he could get lucky with hogs being easy mode ;) :salute
-
Great Fight! The final shot is Head On but I wouldn't consider it a "HO"
SO..........a head on isn't a ho?
-
SO..........a head on isn't a ho?
Apparently not if you engage in some twisty turny first Cap. Let me qualify myself here, I think HO'ing is A-OK. However I only HO as a last resort. Why you passed up the earlier kill shots I will never understand. Good HO Moot! :aok
-
SO..........a head on isn't a ho?
I should have said the final shot is Head on but not a dirty HO. :)
I was trying to say:
I think a HO is bad when its the initial merge, and maybe even the second merge but Once the fight is on, ITS ON! if you fly, roll, stall, or scissor through the oppoents gunsite and he takes the shot, like in this instance, then its clean. thats just my opinion.
the worst HO is the guy the sprays from 1K out and holds the trigger through the merge, especially when they pull up to hold guns on, resulting in a collision. Most Bad HOs I see are the guy that does a quick burst at 200 then extends for ever only to return and do the same thing.
-
The reality is that its not a "HO". fights don't occur in 2 dimensions...in some ways this goes back to the topic I posted in the training area. M00t uses (IMO) the 110's mass for what I label a "pop up" zoom....basically low speed low alt scenario where you can use the vertical vs a "better" plane when/if you can get a short vertical...plane like the 110/mossie/A-20 can claw out just bit extra and often hang at high AoA for an extra second or two. You can see it 2-3 times here in this fight where M00t actually reaches a controlled rotating tail slide type of move...
This is just great E management that happens to create a shot opportunity in the vertical with the bogey trying to claw up...had the F4U elected to stay low then a different shot aspect would have been generated. In this type of fight a combination of deft touch and astute use of the verticals can work wonders :aok
-
I want to make sure that I am understanding some of this line of thinking gentlemen. First question: there are now "fair" HO's and "dirty" HO's? Second, if the goal is to engage in aerial combat, passing a kill shot up like Moot did two times earlier in the fight kind of negates the combat part right? So is this aerial combat or just a cartoon airshow with neat flying showcased? Please understand Moot I am not hammering you, just trying to get a consistent read on folks opinions here. Seems to me to be a bit of hair splitting on the HO comments. Either you are nose-to-nose and fire or you are not. Someone explain this please...
-
They were never "nose to nose" ever at any time.
-
They were never "nose to nose" ever at any time.
I concur Humble. I watched the film and never saw a HO situation. So why bill this as an "evil" HO, as I do not feel it was. Also why folks are adding comments about HO's being OK after you twisty turny for a bit seems a bit self-serving. Some even describing good HO's (is there really such a thing?) and dirty HO's (in the end, they really are all of this type).
-
H5117 called it a very weak HO, so evidently there's still players out there who see these as inarguable HO. "Evil, evil HO" is mostly tongue in cheek.
The line between fair and unfair depends on who's involved, how the fight unfolded, and what the circumstances are outside of the fight. Ask anyone at any given time, and you'll get as many different answers. So it'll pretty much inevitably be hair splitting when you take all those people/answers and have em sort it all out.
Dogfighting/Airshow: To me the essence of the game is when the air combat's outcome is still up in the air. It's true that it's not completely natural to extend the fight despite kill opportunities, but then IMO that's a minor price for a longer dose of that essence. I'm not just sand bagging in that fight. He had relatively plenty of room to turn the tables and win it until the very end. What matters most is that both actors are in a position where the one that tries hardest and deals with his means the most efficiently or cleverly. If that means taking a handicap, then IMO that's not fake or artificial. Those moments when everything is hanging in balance are what the game is all about, for me.
All the better if there's room enough for me to play toreador and type "bang bang" while dodging an opponent in a better plane, and still come out on top.
This sound clip is just about exactly how I see it. (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/Brucelee_agoodfight.mp3)
-
It ain't a HO it is the John Wayne Merge. Face to face guns blazing.
-
I cant believe you did not take that very first shot :rolleyes:
otherwize sweet control.
-
It ain't a HO it is the John Wayne Merge. Face to face guns blazing.
Didnt watch the film did ya?
-
Didnt watch the film did ya?
I think hes saying his opinion of a ho is what most call jousting :salute that sound clip brings a whole new meaning to Aces High, we have to be ninjas of the skies :rock
-
I think hes saying his opinion of a ho is what most call jousting
Actually his comment is the very definition of a HO. Ive seen many call a shot where both didnt have a guns solution HO's. Not every frontal shot is a HO grasshopper
-
A "HO" is when someone attempts to shoot you on the initial merge, assuming the initial "merge" isn't in the middle of a furball. This means that if either opponent opens up on a merge, even if they're no longer nose to nose (i.e., one plane attempts to roll out or otherwise avoid the HO), it's still a HO. After the initial merge, there is no HO.
A "merge," for our discussion, is when two aircraft point their noses at each other, from a considerable distance, and close toward each other in an obvious attempt to engage each other. If one is in the middle of a furball, there is no merge. Though you might come nose to nose with an opponent durring a furball, don't expect him/her to hold the trigger, and don't complain if he/she doesn't.
-
A "HO" is when someone attempts to shoot you on the initial merge, assuming the initial "merge" isn't in the middle of a furball. This means that if either opponent opens up on a merge, even if they're no longer nose to nose (i.e., one plane attempts to roll out or otherwise avoid the HO), it's still a HO. After the initial merge, there is no HO.
A "merge," for our discussion, is when two aircraft point their noses at each other, from a considerable distance, and close toward each other in an obvious attempt to engage each other. If one is in the middle of a furball, there is no merge. Though you might come nose to nose with an opponent durring a furball, don't expect him/her to hold the trigger, and don't complain if he/she doesn't.
i don't point my nose at the aircraft i'm merging with. or at least i try to not let it go nose to nose.
had a really nice, albiet short fight with twizzty 38 vs 38 the other night. he flys the 38 very well. i lost, but he fought clean. i only wish i could've made him work harder for that kill. :D
-
Actually his comment is the very definition of a HO. Ive seen many call a shot where both didnt have a guns solution HO's. Not every frontal shot is a HO grasshopper
See i know this, but i think his definition of a HO is where you have people saying it takes 2 to do it everything else is fair game. :rofl grasshopper
-
See i know this, but i think his definition of a HO is where you have people saying it takes 2 to do it everything else is fair game. :rofl grasshopper
OK Grasshopper.I can go along with that for the most case,except when plane a dives down to avoid and dweeb b dives down and gets the lucky shot in. HO is mostly intention. The guy has no intention in trying to get into an extended fight. Dweeb b wants to kill em as fast as he can.Plane a wants to engage and do some acm.
Most of the people that tried to give me the hot merge couldnt fly their way out of a wet paper bag anyway.Thats why they do that.
-
OK Grasshopper.I can go along with that for the most case,except when plane a dives down to avoid and dweeb b dives down and gets the lucky shot in. HO is mostly intention. The guy has no intention in trying to get into an extended fight. Dweeb b wants to kill em as fast as he can.Plane a wants to engage and do some acm.
Most of the people that tried to give me the hot merge couldnt fly their way out of a wet paper bag anyway.Thats why they do that.
actually, when i do get ho'd it's a "veteran" player much more often than a noob. kinda like they don't wanna chance losing to a B38. :D :noid :rofl
-
The shot was taken well after the first merge. What issue would anyone have with that? You had to fight for that shot.
Besides...110 vs. F4U. I mean c'mon. :)
-
I told H5117 I'd concede it was a very weak HO (as he put it) if someone in this thread could convince me. It's also one more example of a grey-area of gameplay for players to chew on. :)
-
I like when you identify the HO and try to avoid and the guy says on 200 it was a left corner panel shot pfft. Im done attempting to avoid anymore. HO my p40. :D
-
funny when they say that wasnt a ho it was at 20 degree
-
funny when they say that wasnt a ho it was at 20 degree
that's generally what the ho'er says when you try to avoid them. they claim it wasn't a ho, because you didn't have a shot....and of course you didn't have a shot....you tried to maneuver, and enjoy the fight, that they are obviously afraid of losing.
-
that's generally what the ho'er says when you try to avoid them. they claim it wasn't a ho, because you didn't have a shot....and of course you didn't have a shot....you tried to maneuver, and enjoy the fight, that they are obviously afraid of losing.
your right cap just happened to me iwas over a knit base alone. there was 5 uppers i dove and killed the 16 and ran like hell with 3 chacing. i seen they turned around but 1 a f4ud so i turned around got a little alt on the 1st merge i was going under him his guns here blasing so i cut throttle hit a couple flaps in came in from underneath and took his wings off.love when that happens
-
your right cap just happened to me iwas over a knit base alone. there was 5 uppers i dove and killed the 16 and ran like hell with 3 chacing. i seen they turned around but 1 a f4ud so i turned around got a little alt on the 1st merge i was going under him his guns here blasing so i cut throttle hit a couple flaps in came in from underneath and took his wings off.love when that happens
BUT YOU SEE MY POINT THOUGH........
had he got you, and you thanked him for the ho, he'd have said it wasn't...since you tried to avoid.
sorry bout the caps lock in the beginning....had it on, and didn't feel like re-typing
-
(http://<a href='http://www.mediafire.com/?nndzmn3wd5o'>http://www.mediafire.com/?n)just wondering is there a ho in this film?
-
(http://fight at 19.ahf)
-
ok try this 1 more time(http://[URL=http://www.mediafire.com/?nndzmn3wd5o]http://www.mediafire.com/?nndzmn3wd5o[/URL])
-
OK Grasshopper.I can go along with that for the most case,except when plane a dives down to avoid and dweeb b dives down and gets the lucky shot in. HO is mostly intention. The guy has no intention in trying to get into an extended fight. Dweeb b wants to kill em as fast as he can.Plane a wants to engage and do some acm.
Most of the people that tried to give me the hot merge couldnt fly their way out of a wet paper bag anyway.Thats why they do that.
I think half the deaths i have are from avoiding the headon and the other guy getting very lucky :salute
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?nndzmn3wd5o
-
A "HO" is when someone attempts to shoot you on the initial merge, assuming the initial "merge" isn't in the middle of a furball. This means that if either opponent opens up on a merge, even if they're no longer nose to nose (i.e., one plane attempts to roll out or otherwise avoid the HO), it's still a HO. After the initial merge, there is no HO.
A "merge," for our discussion, is when two aircraft point their noses at each other, from a considerable distance, and close toward each other in an obvious attempt to engage each other. If one is in the middle of a furball, there is no merge. Though you might come nose to nose with an opponent durring a furball, don't expect him/her to hold the trigger, and don't complain if he/she doesn't.
So, if I execute a great lead turn and you fly a sloppy merge and I arrive at a guns solution, no matter my angle off the tail during that first turn I'm guilty of a HO?
That explains a lot.........
The goal is to kill quickly and never allow the enemy a guns solution.
I see folks extend past the merge without lead turning. I've always wondered why they do that. I think its from this cold merge silliness so many insist on.
I welcome a hot merge because I KNOW I can defeat the front quarter gun shot. That's not saying some folks with good gunnery and a good guess won't hit me but I can easily dodge 98% of front quarter guns attempts and grab angles while the bandit is shooting (You must relax G while shooting and a max performing opponent will steal angles from you if you insist on shooting at every nose to nose pass)
Why would anyone want an extended fight? If you aren't gaining, you are losing and should exit the fight as soon as you recognize that. I can tell within 2 turns how I'm doing in the fight and if I'm getting my butt kicked I'm looking to exit the fight by getting the bandit blind to me and 180 degrees out.
And then they can type silly taunts about me running on 200............
Of course, in a P38, you usually can't get too far out of the fight before you get caught again.
-
Why would anyone want an extended fight?
Because it's fun. Because score doesn't matter. Or because for some players, pwning in 1 move is old news. It also makes the opponents bitter more often then not. So what do they do? Return in a high picker and/or with overwhelming numbers. End result is the amount of stick and trigger time falls, overall.
Also because killing quick everytime makes you less flexible.. Just about 90% of the arena makes the same mistakes, so that you're killing them the same way over and over again. Boring and bad practice.
Also because it's hard. You raise the handicap and get the equivalent of training with weights on your wrists and ankles. It's more fun and useful to play against hard odds than breeze thru wet TP. This ties right back in with #1. Win-win for everyone involved: higest possible stick/trigger times (i.e. highest learning for the noob), highest total air combat quality, highest fun factor, lowest disgust for the loser, and lowest amount of flying around doing nothing, chasing dots.
-
Because it's fun.
:aok
-
lol thanks moot.how you did you do that .and did you watch it was there any ho's in that video?
-
I'll look at it in a bit, sure.
-
Because it's fun. Because score doesn't matter.
Couldnt have said it better. :salute
I was flying Beta,I think it was the first night,and Batfink and I had a few fights that just gave me AH flashbacks.First one he hit my engine and told me to fly it home,which I did.So I took back off in a Franz to better turn with his Ki and we had a hell of an extended fight going on there till I Locked up harder than prom night wood.
THATS the kinda fight I wanna see.Dont care if I win or lose but I want to see it go for a good 3 or 4 mins with the hair on fire. Some people will never get that.
-
It's more fun and useful to play against hard odds than breeze thru wet TP. This ties right back in with #1. Win-win for everyone involved: higest possible stick/trigger times (i.e. highest learning for the noob), highest total air combat quality, highest fun factor, lowest disgust for the loser, and lowest amount of flying around doing nothing, chasing dots.
Well said, though the thought of wet TP is yucky.
In the best dogfights, the conclusion is not predetermined. Some of my most satisfying fights ended with me with a fatal case of ground rush.
-
Because it's fun. Because score doesn't matter. Or because for some players, pwning in 1 move is old news. It also makes the opponents bitter more often then not. So what do they do? Return in a high picker and/or with overwhelming numbers. End result is the amount of stick and trigger time falls, overall.
Also because killing quick everytime makes you less flexible.. Just about 90% of the arena makes the same mistakes, so that you're killing them the same way over and over again. Boring and bad practice.
Also because it's hard. You raise the handicap and get the equivalent of training with weights on your wrists and ankles. It's more fun and useful to play against hard odds than breeze thru wet TP. This ties right back in with #1. Win-win for everyone involved: higest possible stick/trigger times (i.e. highest learning for the noob), highest total air combat quality, highest fun factor, lowest disgust for the loser, and lowest amount of flying around doing nothing, chasing dots.
A+ on this
but sometimes I get in the mood I just wanna kill the red guy as fast as possible and as many, but yet I still wont Vulch :rolleyes:
-
all this hoing talk lately is really starting to bug me. being fairly new to the game [3-4 months] i thought i would hold off on the head- on shot and wait for a more sportsman like shot tried it for two weeks had enough around 2out of 10 dont shoot i have had enough pilot wounds & lost oil.to the 2 who dont shoot i salute you for the rest if you meet me head on be ready the safety is off
-
You can tell the lame pilots real fast.They dont deviate from meeting you head on. Its the only thing they have in their playbook. If someone comes at you and evades a head on solution,then you just may have a fight on your hands. Good luck. :aok
-
well said drdeath
-
Because it's fun. Because score doesn't matter. Or because for some players, pwning in 1 move is old news. It also makes the opponents bitter more often then not. So what do they do? Return in a high picker and/or with overwhelming numbers. End result is the amount of stick and trigger time falls, overall.
Also because killing quick everytime makes you less flexible.. Just about 90% of the arena makes the same mistakes, so that you're killing them the same way over and over again. Boring and bad practice.
Also because it's hard. You raise the handicap and get the equivalent of training with weights on your wrists and ankles. It's more fun and useful to play against hard odds than breeze thru wet TP. This ties right back in with #1. Win-win for everyone involved: higest possible stick/trigger times (i.e. highest learning for the noob), highest total air combat quality, highest fun factor, lowest disgust for the loser, and lowest amount of flying around doing nothing, chasing dots.
I'm not getting something here.
I get into a fight with a guy or two guys or twelve guys. If my first lead turn results in a tracking guns solution I should not take the shot so that I may extend the fight? What do i do at that point? Make a deliberate mistake so as to give the bandit some hope of turning the tables?
Having fought in thousands of 1 v 1 fights as a trainer I make it a point of not firing until the opponent is completely out of options when training. When he is out of altitude, airspeed and ideas its time to end his misery. Of course the student is instructed that there are no rules. i never fly a 1 v 1 with rules. Extending a fight in a controlled training situation has some obvious benefits. I don't see the point in the Main.
So I know all about extended fights but its seems rather silly to artificially extend a fight in the Main Arena once you have achieved a solid tracking shot.
And we train for the opposite. Just last night I spent 2 hours on the short end of 2 v 1 with squad mates. The entire emphasis was upon killing quick using solid teamwork. A good wing pair should get a first pass kill and three passes is my personal grading standard for a functional wing pair. If a 2 v 1 goes past three guns passes there are gross mistakes being made.
Most players fly the guns or what i call Kodak Instamatic fighting style. They only point the guns. I teach that the guns are only to let the opponent know he lost. You have to out fly him first. It is quite easy to grab angles against an opponent who is pulling for a snap shot at every pass in a nose to nose (One circle) fight. He has to aim and even a split second of aiming results in an angular gain for a max performing opponent. (This is assuming there is not a gross mismatch in sustained turn performance).
I get the idea that there is a large group of players who desire the security of the controlled 1 v 1 duel but do not wish to go find it in a controlled arena for a variety of reasons.
I can get all the 1 v 1 controlled fighting I could ever want and I do. When I fly in the Main I am looking for Massively Multiplayer Situation Awareness Challenges. I want a fight where I have to divide my time between my target and the bandits who have me as the target.
We used to talk about situation awareness and developing the high level of skill required to maintain SA in a multiple bandit fight. Now if someone takes advantage of a guy so target fixated that he refuses to look around, its called a pick (Something I enjoy being called because it means I achieved my goal).
Poor SA is a lack of skill or discipline not some noble, chivalric code being upheld by virtual cartoon warriors.
-
I'm not getting something here.
And we train for the opposite. Just last night I spent 2 hours on the short end of 2 v 1 with squad mates. The entire emphasis was upon killing quick using solid teamwork. A good wing pair should get a first pass kill and three passes is my personal grading standard for a functional wing pair. If a 2 v 1 goes past three guns passes there are gross mistakes being made.
Poor SA is a lack of skill or discipline not some noble, chivalric code being upheld by virtual cartoon warriors.
For one,Your training people to go for the face shot while having numbers is not only appalling,it shows a total lack of class on your part. It also show how far the main has fallen.
NOT taking the initial merge with a face shot does not show lack of SA.It shows character and confidence in your skills.
Please do us all a favor and stop training people to be more of the same score hoz we have now.
The ONLY reason to train people the way it sounds like your doing it to pad the score.NOT learn to fight.
Jesus.Whats this place turning into? :furious
-
I don't understand how you can argue this:
Having fought in thousands of 1 v 1 fights as a trainer I make it a point of not firing until the opponent is completely out of options when training. When he is out of altitude, airspeed and ideas its time to end his misery. Of course the student is instructed that there are no rules. i never fly a 1 v 1 with rules. Extending a fight in a controlled training situation has some obvious benefits. [...] I teach that the guns are only to let the opponent know he lost. You have to out fly him first.
But then argue that it contradicts this:I get into a fight with a guy or two guys or twelve guys. If my first lead turn results in a tracking guns solution I should not take the shot so that I may extend the fight? What do i do at that point? Make a deliberate mistake so as to give the bandit some hope of turning the tables? [...] I don't see the point in the Main. So I know all about extended fights but its seems rather silly to artificially extend a fight in the Main Arena once you have achieved a solid tracking shot.[...] I get the idea that there is a large group of players who desire the security of the controlled 1 v 1 duel but do not wish to go find it in a controlled arena for a variety of reasons.
It's not about security at all... Those two quotes are apples and oranges. You remember those duels we had in the DA a while back... How much fun would it have been, in comparison if I'd taken a 109G2 instead of a 152, and just killed you in seconds instead of dozens of seconds or minutes? Don't you think it was artificial to fly a 152 against a G2? How do you explain having fun as you did in such an artificial setup? Do you think the game would comparatively (if not absolutely) be much fun if anyone in the latter part of the learning curve just dispatched the large majority of the players that're still earlier in the learning curve, at first opportunity? The rate of noobs getting shot down would be insane. They'd burn out extra quick.
Poor SA is a lack of skill or discipline not some noble, chivalric code being upheld by virtual cartoon warriors.
What poor SA? My SA's fine. I know exactly what kind of trouble I get into. I specifically measure it so that only flying at my best will get me out alive and on top. You're going for an off topic ad hominem when you bring in chivalry and noble what-not. It's about having fun, nothing more complicated than that. One of the beauties of a well played fight, as far as the participants are concerned, is the suspense of the outcome. You can have that suspense with natural as much as artificial setups. You can have a challenging setup regardless of whether it's natural or artificial... Same with having fun.
I'm not arguing that "artificial" setups are better than natural ones. Only that there's no negligible skills to learn from playing all over the spectrum. Everywhere from the "sand bagging" end and the 100% kill mode end. Nowhere in it do you have to make "gross mistakes". At no point in any of the "Artificial" fights I've been having do I aim to lose. I always play to win... Always. It's just become very shallow to win without any peril. It's just as challenging to play the other guy's game and beat him on his own terms. More difficult and rewarding to win with a handicap. And now we're back to square one: not only is it more rewarding for me, that way, but the other guy who needs the handicap to compete is also having more fun and actually has time to learn and improve. Compared to being towered with a single ping. Is he denied the right to see and learn from that single ping move? Not at all.. He's going to improve (while having more fun) and eventually see those moves when they're what's required to beat him.
-
Comparing "natural" and "artificial" setups to find which one is more "right" is like comparing characteristic fights in the MA and DA. Like Chess and Tic-Tac-Toe. Like comparing the form of asian martial arts' practice/demo patterns VS actual practical fights'. Or hotlapping around a racetrack VS actual racecraft... and so on. One is almost completely static, with no unknowns, whereas the other is much more dynamic and depends much more on improvisation. Both are essential.
You could divide these in three big categories: flying to win (i.e. same as real warfare), flying to have fun, and flying to rule the opponent. First one is self-explanatory: you leave nothing to chance and make killing the other guy the first priority. Second is pretty random: whatever floats your boat. In this one there are no rules, it's all up to taste.
The third one is my idea of truly beating the opponent. Not just grabbing the first chance of winning, but going out of your way to find every possible attempt the opponent could make, and beating every single one. Or at least as many as feasible. In this perspective, the first category is arguably less of a victory and more likely of being a fluke. There's always an element of luck in fights. Method #3 forces you to really have all bases covered. Like going all in to the last challenge in games like "Who wants to be a millionaire?". You don't just stop at the first right answer and run out with the 20$ bill.
If all the possible scenarios for a given fight were a tree, with the ends of the branches being the fight's end, #3 has you traveling to as many victory branch-ends and then tracking back or bifurcating to the next, until as many of those victories' reqs have been satisfied. Much like in modern mock dogfights you don't actually fire your guns but just get a lock (or whatever specifically happens). You paint the other guy dead. Bang bang. Then move on to the next scenario. That's how I see this "weird" #3. It's fun much the same way as playing toreador.
In fact, IMO, when I purposedly and successfully bait a higher con into committing and then overcoming the E deficit, all the way to a kill after not only satisfying victory rule-set #1, but #3 as well, it's me that's dictated the fight, and that's when I can really say that I won. Anything less than allowing and defeating every possible attempt, could have been a fluke.
And even if you ignore all of this. There's the undeniable fun in actually risking something instead of playing it safe... and this is all just a game! :) You lose nothing from dying, and IMO lose more from snuffing a fight that could've gone on than you do from dying because you risked playing it unsafe in a fight half as long as the fight you could've had if you hadn't died.
And of course this doesn't exclude those fights where you do have to fly at 100% of what you're capable of. It's actually, IMO, a very good skill to develop - continually modulating your flying to match exactly 101% of what the other guy is doing.
-
So any time I survive more than two turns with a superior pilot I haven't actually proven myself capable of fighting them... rather I've just been fortunate that they're extending the fight for fun. Humbling to say the least. :(
-
Or he's not pushing himself, or he's not quite sober, or he's having a bad day....
-
@Qrsu: I think moot is in that regard not representative. To be honest i know very few pilots that will pass a good guns solutions for a perfect one, especially in the MA.
There is nothing wrong in either Moot's and Dawger's approach to fight in the MA. Its a matter of personal taste.
And contrary to DrDea i don't believe Dawger trains "people to go for the face shot". He is instructing people to efficiently work as a team or unit. That has nothing to do with face shots, but with setting up a gun solution for your wingman. Moot made a post concering "Things not to do when expecting help from a friendly" and i guess Dawger trains people not do the stupid things mentioned there.
I like both approaches and which i choose depends on my actual.
-
So any time I survive more than two turns with a superior pilot I haven't actually proven myself capable of fighting them... rather I've just been fortunate that they're extending the fight for fun. Humbling to say the least. :(
It's not a be-all end-all like that... If you've gone through two + turns with a better pilot where you know they had a guns solution, they might be extending it. If you denied them a guns solution, your practice is paying off a little...
-
@Qrsu: I think moot is in that regard not representative. To be honest i know very few pilots that will pass a good guns solutions for a perfect one, especially in the MA.
if you're refering to passing a good ho shot? i'm not sure....but i know quite a few that will, and do all the time. funny thing, is they ALL fly p38's. always a good fight as i get my arse kicked too. :aok
-
You will never see me take the HO as a first resort.If Im fighting someone that constantly tries for that shot,I'll return the favor.
-
that's generally what the ho'er says when you try to avoid them. they claim it wasn't a ho, because you didn't have a shot....and of course you didn't have a shot....you tried to maneuver, and enjoy the fight, that they are obviously afraid of losing.
Pretty much the only time I've gotten irate on open channel. Someone made a big deal of me "HOing" them, even though it wasn't a HO, unless you consider a shot on a overshoot a HO. Then two days later, I end up head to head on the same guy. I roll out, he turns and opens up, takes off enough of my tail that I can't fly, then says it wasn't a HO because there was no danger to him.
-
I know exactly what kind of trouble I get into.
Pfft. Moot's trouble is that he runs out of bullets after repeatedly shooting me down.