HO shot or Deflection?

[ODBAL]

ODBAL: The first rule in a 1 vs. multiple fight is to kill someone... and do it as quickly as you can. Any gun solution, even momentary, should be used. Style points are not issued in the game, so don't worry about the HO whiners who complain if you kill them from 15 degrees off nose. 

OK, then I'll move that one up to #1 and... Should I drop pooping my pants to #2 or should it be lower?  Thanks for the input <S>

[RumbleB]

I'd call it a poor merge on his part. I've always been told to try to dive under the con to gain speed and then go up and over. It sounds to me that he was trying to immbleman too soon and got caught.

just doing this is gonna make you easy to hit for someone who's trying to get a straight shot.  you need to constantly switch your angle avoiding the ho shot. where you go doesn't matter. if hes turning into you trying to shoot you, while you're trying to turn away to get onto him.. ur gonna be the one with the edge once the turning starts..

Always be first to attack for position, doesn't matter where you go- this is why ho wannabes make easy targets. that's what a call them. cause you have an edge as soon as they start coming at you with no plan b for when they miss their ho shot.

[2fly]

I know I spelled it wrong but it is almost 3:30AM so I don't care lol. Anyway, just had rather interesting incident but just makes me wonder what would most consider this shot as:

I see the 109 diving in on me from little bit higher then I was. I was about 1.5 and was going to fly under him and do barrel roll so I was expecting him to ho me. He decided he wanted to pull up about 1000, exposing his underbelly long enough for me to score some hits, including rad. hit. He was climbing and as he was doing so, he was accusing me of ho'ing him.   But anyway, he saw this as me ho'ing him even though I didn't consider it as one since he exposed his belly to my guns.

So my question, would this be considered as HO shot or deflection shot?

It was a deflection shot.  Your opponent made the critical error of attempting to avoid an imminent HO situation.  He thereby gave you a nice relatively easy shot that was completely safe for you.  Had you missed that shot it sounds as if he set himself up for you to saddle up on him too. Attempting to avoid a HO from under 2k range is usually a losers game.  A small correction to your flight path and aim and you have the "deflection shot".  Solution....dont avoid the HO that close unless you are in a vastly more agile AC.

[BillyD]

and we don't love them ho's

[SlapShot]

By slipping. Their noses do not have to be pointed along the path of their aircraft.

Side slip and you will either take away their guns solution or yours ... thus eliminating the guns to guns HO solution.

[mtnman]

As much as I dislike the HO, I do feel it is a necessary and important ingredient to have decent, fairly realistic aerial fights.  I feel that way for two reasons in particular.

One, there should be (IMO) a "penalty" or deterrent for allowing your opponent to acquire a gun solution, or for giving him one.  Put yourself in harms way, and you should suffer, simple as that.  In this case, what I'm referring to are the guys that will pull their immelmann early, showing you their belly, or other similar maneuvers.  They're counting on you to be polite and not shoot, and are attempting to take advantage of that and get around on you.  IMO, that's just as cheap, if not more-so, than the HO shot itself.  To not shoot them would be wrong.  They need to learn that exposing themselves to taking hits is a bad idea.  To not shoot would lead to them believing that maneuvering like this is OK, proper, and effective.

I NEVER enter a fight looking to shoot HO-style, but will rapidly change my mind in this situation- out of a sense of duty. Sure, I'm upset that they would force me to send them to the tower before we could really even get started, but to not do so would be a dis-service to my opponent and to the overall quality of fights in the game.  So, I'll sacrifice the quality fight I'd hoped for in order to help my opponent along on his path to higher ACM knowledge and higher quality fights in the future.  To not do so would lead to lower quality fights in the future.  I'll "take one for the team" here, and shoot him with a cheap shot.

Two, the HO taboo should not be used like a "goal" in a game of schoolyard freeze tag.  I often see pilots pull into an intentional HO with the (apparent) thought that this would force me to not shoot.  An example would be the low guy pulling HO into my dive attack.  He's relying on the "Don't shoot me, I'm HO and that would be taboo!" defense, rather than on a legitimate ACM defense.  IMO, this guy also needs to be shot.  Sure, I'd rather pull up and delay my dive for a few seconds and shoot him as he hangs and falls off (and I usually do).  The problem is that he learns that this is an OK, acceptable, method to defend himself, when in reality there are several better options.  So, again IMO, not shooting this guy is a bad idea, and encourages behavior that could lead to lower quality fights in the future.  So, I'll shoot him if I can do it without taking hits myself.  Allowing him to shoot me down in this situation would be very negative.  He'd be given a positive re-enforcement for bad behavior...

Don't think I condone the HO attack we see so often in the MA's- I don't.  I just think that in some situations it's a necessity to maintain or advance the quality of our aerial fights.

MtnMan

[Ack-Ack]

Not a HO, but it sounds like you were pointing at him and had every intent of HOing him if it would be safe for you.  Sounds like he gave you the courtesy of avoiding a HO or collision and went for the fight instead, but got bullets in return.  Its a nice post, but it sounds like you took the opportunity to avoid the fight.  If there were others in the area, then good job.  If just you and him though, yeah, not a HO by definition but . . .

It sounds more like the other guy mistimed his merge and pulled up to early showing his belly.


ack-ack

[dedalos]

One, there should be (IMO) a "penalty" or deterrent for allowing your opponent to acquire a gun solution, or for giving him one.  Put yourself in harms way, and you should suffer, simple as that.  In this case, what I'm referring to are the guys that will pull their immelmann early, showing you their belly, or other similar maneuvers.  They're counting on you to be polite and not shoot, and are attempting to take advantage of that and get around on you.  IMO, that's just as cheap, if not more-so, than the HO shot itself.  To not shoot them would be wrong.  They need to learn that exposing themselves to taking hits is a bad idea.  To not shoot would lead to them believing that maneuvering like this is OK, proper, and effective.

MtnMan

  you a trainer right?  Maybe you should have known that at equal speeds, if you pull up early for an immel, the bad guy will end up right on your six? The only cheap thing about it is the act of committing suicide    If the bad guy is faster all he has to do is chop throttle for a second and the result is the same.

But hey, you are right, teach people to go for the HO since the other guy pulled a cheap move by getting out of the way and trying to have a fight.  Don't learn how to take advantage of his mistake.  Just call him cheap and shoot him in the face 

Anyone else wondering why everyone opts for the HO first? 

[storch]

very well stated dedalos.

[dedalos]

very well stated dedalos.

Why do I get nervous when you agree with me? 

[storch]

I retract my statement, what was I thinking?   

[dedalos]

I retract my statement, what was I thinking?   

Thank you

[mtnman]

Lol, I'm not talking about shooting him in the face. 

It would be the same situation mentioned in the opening of this thread, and he'd be shot in the belly.  Or, as you mentioned (as I have in previous threads) chopping throttle will allow you to pull and follow him up.  The result is generally the same either way, as is his perception of the shot.  Since he's pulling up his view of you is blocked, and he assumes it was an "HO" either way.  In reality, of course, neither shot is an HO.

Again, for the simple-minded folks, I'm not advocating HO'ing.  I am merely stating that in a discussion of ACM (where the "C" stands for "combat") something is seriously flawed if the success of your ACM requires your opponent to not shoot when he acquires a gun solution, and especially if you give him one.

As a trainer, I would point out (without shooting, of course) errors like this to the person I'm teaching, and explain why it's a bad idea, and give him/her some better options.

In the MA though, we don't really have that option do we?  Immediate verbal communication with an opponent is almost never possible.  I would argue that getting yourself in HO situations should be avoided whenever possible (would you agree?).  As an animal trainer (most people are easily trained the same way, BTW) I can tell you that immediate positive or negative reinforcement of a behavior is an extremely effective way to shape that behavior.  In our game environment, two simple forms of positive reinforcement are A)believing that a maneuver "helped" or was successful, and B)winning an engagement.  Especially for someone fairly "new", winning the engagement wouldn't be a requirement (simply living longer would be a positive reinforcement) but winning would be a major reinforcement of the behavior he/she believed contributed to that win.  This behavior could easily be a "bad" behavior though, that wasn't negatively reinforced (punished) such as a successful HO, or pulling an early immelmann.

So how can we stop behavior like that in the MA's?  Maybe we don't need to.  But maybe we want to.  Whining on 200 obviously doesn't work.  And how many of the "offenders" spend time on the boards?  And "helpful" advice after the fact (unless it's solicited) is generally going to be seen as gloating, or not understood fully in our clipped little ingame text.  It's also not "immediate", so the exact behavior that caused teh problem isn't as easily recognized, or may even be confused witha different (and possibly even desirable) behavior.  So, what better than a little "sting" of cartoon bullets at the moment of bad behavior?  Is there a better, more effective way?   Maybe offering to take the fella to the DA and "teach" him how to fight better (after he "beat" you with unclean tactics)?

BTW, that initial post was worded as it was to see who could be dragged into this discussion, hehe.

[mtnman]

Maybe you should have known that at equal speeds, if you pull up early for an immel, the bad guy will end up right on your six? The only cheap thing about it is the act of committing suicide    If the bad guy is faster all he has to do is chop throttle for a second and the result is the same.

So, what you're saying here is "it's not ok to shoot the guy when he gives you the opportunity, unless you chop throttlle and pull first.  Then, it's ok to shoot him for making the same mistake that would have allowed him to be shot in the first place."

So, that begs the question- How much aerial "mastery" needs to be domonstrated before a shot is "legitimate"?  Is chopping throttle and pulling once the defining act?  Is getting behind him the requirement?  Winning his six?  How do you prove you "won" his six?  A certain ammount of time back there (enough for a roll, say?).  And if he makes a mistake, and "gives" you his six, have you really "won" it?  What if you accidently just find yourself behind him?  Does that count?

 

[Kermit de frog]

Mtnman the Fishrman.

Mtnman, this game is about dogfighting, not fragging.  Teaching people to turn into their attack is bad advice if left as short as that.
Yes it's sometimes good to turn into your opponent, but never so far as a 0 degree AOT.  90 degree AOT is best, and any further is just a purely defensive maneuver with no real shot at getting into a dogfight.