The MA Mentality...

[mechanic]

 I figure why should I be bothered at a certain type of player when it would be far better to learn how to beat them and do it repeatedly

[Babalonian]

Excluding the cherry pick area in the DA (just another mini MA) it a simple difference.
 
In the DA you set up for a duel where you start at all equal and try to gain an advantage.  You work for it while the other guy tries to prevent you from doing so.  You do it for the fight, to see how good you are, and to learn from a controlled situation.  Meaning, if you gain the advantage you learn from how you did it.  If you die, you learn from how you died.  It takes away the randomness of the the MA environment out.

In the MA is free for all.  It is fun, especially if you can take on a few guys at the time ( but you wont be able to do that unless you tried the above).  However it is very random.  Most of the guys you will engage will already have the advantage on you or you will have an advantage on them.  You wont learn match by killing someone because you really don;t know why you were able to.

In any case.  Both fun.  I just don't understand what is so difficult to understand about what a duel is.

I understand what a duel is, and you described it probabley beter than I could, a controlled fight/situation, the same with how it compares to the randomness found in the MA.  But, I'm trying to figure out from the OP's perspective (*points to thread's title and original post*)how that "MA mentality" of randomness and always being prepared to counter other randoms is his problem when it is more likely to be his solution when dealing with a jerk who exploits those who aren't prepared.

[CAP1]

THE fact is, that 95% of the time that you lose a fight, it's only you that beat yourself for the other guy, in some way shape or form.  i know, as i've come into fights with advantages, and still managed to lose. i've come into fights with disadvantages, and managed to win. i also don't think i'm any better than anyone on here, so don't mis-intrepret me.......
 last night, i kept commin up at stang in his p39, and feeding him free kills, but the fact is that it was only me that beat me. same when i got kilt by bronk. had i been more patient, and extended for better advantages, i might've had a chance.

 i used to get pissed when i lost. now i just film, watch, and learn. it's all any of us can do really, right?

[mechanic]

well CAP, another idea would be not flying near Stang or Bronk ever again!

[CAP1]

well CAP, another idea would be not flying near Stang or Bronk ever again!

 


NAH.......

 t was my own fault. stang actually kept lettingh me get some speed and alt, before he came in on me.........i couldn't get to bronks alt ever.....i do admit that i ran for cover of ack repeatedly though

 they both flew their aircraft nearly flawlessly, while i turned dweebish, and decided i WAS going to kill one of em no matter what it took. it never happened 

[mechanic]

i was like that the other day on a rare occasion i could play.
 Had Storch and VWE in MidWar attacking our base and i just went at them like a tool blazing away. They roped and tag teamed my mossy multiple times in their 190 and mossy. (actualy some decent winging tactics) After being shot down by stoch 5 times and and VWE about the same i finally shot off VW's tail. Storch however eluded me the whole night and not only did i miss the easiest 600 yrd shot on him but i let myself get roped like a 2 weeker more than once.

[Bosco123]

lol no and no. it just seems bosco thinks e-fighting = cheating, which I disagree with.

I'm not calling it cheating, I havn't all this post. I have been contested by a few, but there is no evidence that shows that I call it cheating.
Heres how the fight went, It wasn't even until about the third merge that he tried to rope climb me in a situation like we were. We already began to slow down, and I expected that he was going to keep a stright fight with me, just like most people do. He immdietly began for the rope stall climb, which I think was a usless way of killing me. I'm not going to object that he killed me, yes he did, its just the fact that you can turn someone and have a good fight, or show that you can use a skill that has no point to a stright up fight.

I think Dedalos was right on this one, I was just a little upset the didn't fight me the way I expected. As for that film Shane, The film was to show that when his skill was turned to use against him, the advantage was turned quickly, just as in the first fight. And what realy is funny, he uses that same skill, that he uses in a 1v1 fight, that he uses in the MA, which again will turn to "MA Menatlity"
I'm not gonna brag, because I havn't fought many people in here, the people that I have fought, we of much more skill than me, both of them I had to fight two totally diffrent ways of stall fighting. One more of rolling sciscors, and the other, more of throttle control, which both worked very effective. I think if I were to choose one over the other, it would be the throttle management; you can get some crazy snapshots, were you thought you were going to get the shot.
I'm going to be honest here, I used to be one of those "E managment dweebs" I know exactly how to use it, and I used to do it efective for a wile there. But when I saw that everytime I got low and slow with someone, I would lose the fight very quickly. I decided to turn to a more, stall fighting wile keeping some E at the same time, which has got me longer fights, and a lot better fights IMO.

[mechanic]

So yeah, learn how to expand your trick book for situations you dont do so well in, but dont then blame someone for using your old method.

To wrap this up we need clear facts.

Did he simply use an E conserving merge to gain the upper hand which countered your aggressive first turn or did he cheat before icon range to gain that advantage?

If he didnt cheat, then you got beat fair and square. Go speak to any of the trainers with the exception of Texture they all will teach you smart energy flying long before complex scissors or overshoots.

bottom line, if there was no cheating before icons you just came up against a style that you were not prepared for and some silly part of your gaming world right now is telling you you only lost because he used a lame tactic. you want to define lame, i could post a session i once had with dealos where he deliberately HO me on the first turn twice in a row. I called him a hotard but refused to get annoyed(what he wanted) i stepped up to the challege and destroyed him 6 times in a row. Not because im better, because i didnt let his 'style of the day' get me down or make me quit after one or two fights. i get on with ded and have fun fights with him, but dont you go thinking he, or any of us, is not capable of 'lame tactics' in a duel if the mood dictates it.

[CAP1]

So yeah, learn how to expand your trick book for situations you dont do so well in, but dont then blame someone for using your old method. this is why i kept comming back at stang and bronk last night...even knowing who they were. i can only get better through trial and error.....

To wrap this up we need clear facts.

Did he simply use an E conserving merge to gain the upper hand which countered your aggressive first turn or did he cheat before icon range to gain that advantage?

If he didnt cheat, then you got beat fair and square. Go speak to any of the trainers with the exception of Texture they all will teach you smart energy flying long before complex scissors or overshoots.

bottom line, if there was no cheating before icons you just came up against a style that you were not prepared for and some silly part of your gaming world right now is telling you you only lost because he used a lame tactic. you want to define lame, i could post a session i once had with dealos where he deliberately HO me on the first turn twice in a row. I called him a hotard but refused to get annoyed(what he wanted) i stepped up to the challege and destroyed him 6 times in a row. Not because im better, because i didnt let his 'style of the day' get me down or make me quit after one or two fights. i get on with ded and have fun fights with him, but dont you go thinking he, or any of us, is not capable of 'lame tactics' in a duel if the mood dictates it.

[Bronk]

this is why i kept comming back at stang and bronk last night...even knowing who they were. i can only get better through trial and error.....

*waves hand*


Edit: batty caption is much better.


 

[mechanic]

'these are not the dweebs you are looking for'

[Bronk]

NAH.......

 t was my own fault. stang actually kept lettingh me get some speed and alt, before he came in on me.........i couldn't get to bronks alt ever.....i do admit that i ran for cover of ack repeatedly though

 they both flew their aircraft nearly flawlessly, while i turned dweebish, and decided i WAS going to kill one of em no matter what it took. it never happened 

You got to my alt... I just wouldn't let ya get any smash.   I also had to kill that zeke 1st. You did well considering the circumstances. The best option you could have done was drag down and force the overshoot.  And that dragging through the ack was not nice. You know how long it take to patch them holes?

[Bosco123]

So yeah, learn how to expand your trick book for situations you dont do so well in, but dont then blame someone for using your old method.

To wrap this up we need clear facts.

Did he simply use an E conserving merge to gain the upper hand which countered your aggressive first turn or did he cheat before icon range to gain that advantage?

If he didnt cheat, then you got beat fair and square. Go speak to any of the trainers with the exception of Texture they all will teach you smart energy flying long before complex scissors or overshoots.

bottom line, if there was no cheating before icons you just came up against a style that you were not prepared for and some silly part of your gaming world right now is telling you you only lost because he used a lame tactic. you want to define lame, i could post a session i once had with dealos where he deliberately HO me on the first turn twice in a row. I called him a hotard but refused to get annoyed(what he wanted) i stepped up to the challege and destroyed him 6 times in a row. Not because im better, because i didnt let his 'style of the day' get me down or make me quit after one or two fights. i get on with ded and have fun fights with him, but dont you go thinking he, or any of us, is not capable of 'lame tactics' in a duel if the mood dictates it.

I don't want to say he's a cheat, if I were paying attention to what he was doing, or I had the film to prove it, then I would by all rights call him a cheat on the merge.
I didn't call him out, so it just wasn't that he wanted to beat me, we wanted to have a few rounds of, "fair fighting" which, in my mind at the time, thought it would be a fun fight. We then go back to the "Hornor system" were I thought that it was a know thing that it was going to be a fair and square fight. I never met him, so when I said, "Hey, I'm looking for someone good to fight" I was planning to have a good fight.
Yes Bronk, he did beat me using my old tatic that I used before. did I expect it? No, again, I thought it was going to be a stright fight. Am I calling him a cheat? No, I have no evidence to support that claim, other than from what people said, which can be called as "word of the mouth" which means that somthing can be true, but it can be made up lie, no offence to you guys, its just a fact. Sometimes, you cain't trust what people say, and I don't believe, that its strong enough to keep that claim going. I need film or a screenshot.
Should I have bit my tounge? Of course I should have, and if I were to go back and do it again, I wouldn't have said anything. But with the state of mind I was in, ready for a "good fight" at the time, I would have done it all over again, and it will probably happen again in the future, but then again, it my not. The only thing I said to him was, "Nice rope" which set him off, for some reason, which ultimetly, got me pizzed off. Which would wind me back were I am now, just tring to explain what happend.

[mechanic]

 Trust me B, alot of us know what you're talking about. We are on your side for what you are standing for (fair equal fights).
 The one thing that doesnt fit is we dont know if huckster cheated or if you just got sucked into a fight you were not expecting. When you say 'straight up fight' I have a hard time understanding how you define that as strictly 'TnB' from the merge and nothing else. There is absolutely no definition that says a duel must be angles only, that is a fallacy produced from exactly this scenario, someone being beat when they didnt expect it in a manner they didnt expect.
 I have done this, called out the 'E hoard dueler type' and ranted and raved knowing that my overall ACM knoledge far surpasses them. Then one day i realised.... if it does, why am i losing and why am i getting pissed off?

[Bronk]

Yes Bronk,

How did i get dragged into this?