The HO is probably the most simple, most basic, most "instinctual" form of attack I can think of. Easy to master? Not exactly, but not all that difficult either. It's very simplicity is probably why it's looked down upon. Most of us feel as if we're "above stooping to that level" or feel others should feel that way. However, I've come to reverse my thoughts in that respect, at least for the most part.
Old habits die hard, but I'll do my best to NOT belittle those using the HO, and I'll be snickering at those who die by it, and laughing hysterically at those who whine about it. Popular position to take? No, but I'm OK with that. Honestly, I'm embarrassed to realize I've taken part in the other option. I feel like I've been acting like a lemming. So here you go- beginner or ace, feel free to HO me. If you shoot me down with it, that's fine. I consider it as valid as any other shot angle. Is whining about others using lesser tactics simply a way to claim superiority? As in "I'm too good to use the HO!"
How effective is the HO? Not terribly, or at least it's not an overly "efficient or effective" tactic, simply because the probability of losing to it is as great as winning with it (if we ignore different gun lethality, etc). After all, it's simply jousting, right? If you mastered it, and used it for every fight, the long-term best you could expect is about a 50-50 chance of winning, which is low odds in my book. Can it always be avoided? Nope. But that's the way it should be.
Would I teach others to use the HO? No, although I do feel kind of bad about thinking that way. I wouldn't, simply because I don't need to teach it. It's probably the most "instinctual" method of shooting someone. Point at the bad guy and shoot, simple as can be. I also won't teach it because I believe that there are better, higher-probability-of-success (for the most part) tactics available. I'll stick with those. I don't teach people to land with their gear up either. I think that as people realize they consistantly lose by using the HO as a tactic, they'll eventually want to find a better way.
Do I intend to start using the HO regularly? No. But that's mostly form a "greed" point of view. I'm simply not willing to concede defeat as often as a win. I'm not happy with a statistical K/D of 1/1. I'll take the "high road" and fly in what has proven to me to be a "smarter" "safer" "more fun" manner. I don't generally find losing to be as much fun as winning. In reality, I doubt you'll ever see a 1/1 with the HO as a primary tactic.
But, I sure wouldn't deny the use of the HO either, for several reasons.
For one- as a beginner to the game (or even a long-time player lacking advanced fighter skills), and fighting an "experienced" stick, it's flat-out your best (if not only) chance to live through the fight. I can practically guarantee that if you're new to the game, and don't kill me with the HO, your chances of beating me are extremely slim. You'd best leave quickly, and bring back some friends. I'm not trying to brag- I'm just bluntly stating a fact. I'd feel ridiculous belittling someone for attempting to use their best option for success. The HO is a very basic, "no-brainer" tactic. As such, it should be a "no-brainer" for me to watch out for it, and defend myself from it. To consider the HO as an "invalid" tactic unfairly handicaps those who need it most. "What? You have no legs?? Here, lemme handcuff you before we race across the pool".
That said, if you want to beat me with any regularity you'll need to look into learning some better tactics.
What good are an "aces" uber-aerial-ninja skillz if he can be regularly dropped by the equivalent of a redneck kicking him in the the groin?
I'd say the ninja needs to brush up on some basics. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an effort to improve your skills, and learn some more effective tactics. I'm saying people should be ashamed of themselves if they're verbally bullying less experienced players for not being experienced enough.
Two- if your opening (or later) move allows you to be HO'd, the fight should be over, or at least it (the HO) should be a legitimate option. To have a shot at your opponent, and not take it out of a sense of it being a "taboo" tactic makes the fight a sham. A mockery. The "quality" fight that develops is essentially based on a "lie". The fight could have easily been won, so anything that comes later is artificial. The HO is a simple, basic tactic. I don't want to hear about your uber skillz if you can't handle the basics. Skipping the "basics" to get to the "good parts" isn't often a good policy. I don't see why that simple idea shouldn't apply in AH.
Three- the overall low statistical effectiveness of the HO is what probably (I haven't researched the historical progression of air tactics, sorry...) lead to the desire to invent, recognise, learn, and teach the "better" "more advanced" tactics. Without it as an option, the "better" tactics would appear to lose value. A dollar is only worth more than a penny because the penny exists. Remove the penny, and the value of the dollar is what, exactly? Without change the dollar becomes the lowest value. Without the HO the "better" tactics fall a notch as well. Without poor tactics, what's the point of good tactics?
Four- removing the HO as a valid tactic to win a fight is IMO like removing other "basic" ways to win in competition. IMO, it's equal to playing a game of basketball and saying "No free throws or 2 pointers will be counted! Only the "skilled" shots from behind the 3-point line count". Or a game of football where only touchdowns matter, no score for field goals or extra point kicks. Or a game of golf where you could only win with "birdies" or "eagles", and were shunned for shooting "par".
Again- removing the HO as a valid tactic is removing one of the basics. Without the simple basics to compare against, the advanced tactics aren't as advanced. That fact alone gives the HO legitimate value.
