Author Topic: Reviewing the "HO"  (Read 10375 times)

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2010, 09:56:21 AM »
No, I'm not hanging off of both sides, hehe!  I'm in favor of it entirely as an aspect of our fights.  But from my perspective, it isn't good enough, as it leaves a bit too much chance I'll take damage.

I think the direction to go is to teach people to avoid getting hit by it, and capitalize on the position you can gain from doing that.  NOT to try to discourage people from taking the shot.

Always better options?  I question that argument as well...  For example, I could argue that in a lot of my fights, the HO is the best chance my opponent has to kill me...  If he doesn't go for it, and succeed at it, I'm going to win.  He'll be lucky to even come close to another shot solution.  Now, how fair/mature/reasonable is it for me to say he shouldn't take whatever opportunity he has for success?  The reality is that I win almost every 1v1 encounter I'm in in the MA.  That sounds like bragging, I'm sure, but it's true.  That basically means that if I don't get killed or damaged in the initial merge, I'm almost home-free.  That's a great reason for me not to try the HO, but an equally good reason for my opponent to go for the HO.  How can I complain about someone trying to HO me, or fight me 2 or 3 on one???  

The HO-complaining, to me anyway, sounds like someone saying- "Well, if you hadn't of killed me right away, you could have seen how good I can really fly, and you'd know I'm a better pilot than you.  Really.  Seriously.  No, seriously.  I am.  I really, really am.  Totally."  "After the merge, I was gonna do this totally sweet triple loop-de-loop thingy..."  To me, it's like the Olympic spring-board diver "champion" who falls off the ladder before his dive.  Master the basics first, and never forget about them.  No matter how good you are at "step two", you need to succeed at "step one".

It's a vicious circle.  Going for it is bad...  Passing on it is bad...  In the end though, I expect my opponent to point his guns at me and fire.  I know which end your guns are on, and I know how to avoid them.

If he doesn't do that, passes on chances to do that because he sees it as "impure", not only do I fail to see the logic, but I think it reduces the quality of the fights.  It drags them out into something they shouldn't be.  Exciting?  Not for me.  Kill me if you can...  If you can, I deserve it, and expect it...  
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 10:22:30 AM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2010, 10:26:57 AM »
I think MT, Baumer and Grizz hit on underlying perspectives we're trying to nurture.

1) The HO viewed in the context of other options
2) The HO in relation to "game play" and the realities of the "Mexican standoff"
3) Understanding the differences between FQ shots and a true "HO"

I had an other interesting situation over the weekend, I was in a D Hog and had had a few good run ins with an F6F. In the course of a given flight I ended up odd man out as the F6F and pony engaged others. As things evolved I had the  E to climb up into the F6F and he took me up...we ended up in a situation where he fell back in a reverse early enough that I had closing speed but far enough away to create a true vertical merge. I had clean shot at 1000 but by 600 we were nose to nose so I held off...and got lit up at 400.

Now thats a totally grey area that falls outside of a true HO. His front end might have shown a pure rope. I had a shot of him "in rotation" at 800 and he didn't really stabilize till 400 when he took the shot so I probably could have killed him before he got guns on me...there is no true right or wrong a surprisingly high % of the time.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17729
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2010, 12:16:37 PM »
No, I'm not hanging off of both sides, hehe!  I'm in favor of it entirely as an aspect of our fights.  But from my perspective, it isn't good enough, as it leaves a bit too much chance I'll take damage.

I think the direction to go is to teach people to avoid getting hit by it, and capitalize on the position you can gain from doing that.  NOT to try to discourage people from taking the shot.

Always better options?  I question that argument as well...  For example, I could argue that in a lot of my fights, the HO is the best chance my opponent has to kill me...  If he doesn't go for it, and succeed at it, I'm going to win.  He'll be lucky to even come close to another shot solution.  Now, how fair/mature/reasonable is it for me to say he shouldn't take whatever opportunity he has for success?  The reality is that I win almost every 1v1 encounter I'm in in the MA.  That sounds like bragging, I'm sure, but it's true.  That basically means that if I don't get killed or damaged in the initial merge, I'm almost home-free.  That's a great reason for me not to try the HO, but an equally good reason for my opponent to go for the HO.  How can I complain about someone trying to HO me, or fight me 2 or 3 on one???  

The HO-complaining, to me anyway, sounds like someone saying- "Well, if you hadn't of killed me right away, you could have seen how good I can really fly, and you'd know I'm a better pilot than you.  Really.  Seriously.  No, seriously.  I am.  I really, really am.  Totally."  "After the merge, I was gonna do this totally sweet triple loop-de-loop thingy..."  To me, it's like the Olympic spring-board diver "champion" who falls off the ladder before his dive.  Master the basics first, and never forget about them.  No matter how good you are at "step two", you need to succeed at "step one".

It's a vicious circle.  Going for it is bad...  Passing on it is bad...  In the end though, I expect my opponent to point his guns at me and fire.  I know which end your guns are on, and I know how to avoid them.

If he doesn't do that, passes on chances to do that because he sees it as "impure", not only do I fail to see the logic, but I think it reduces the quality of the fights.  It drags them out into something they shouldn't be.  Exciting?  Not for me.  Kill me if you can...  If you can, I deserve it, and expect it...  


So a HO is the only chance anyone...basically... has a chance to shoot you down with. So your saying to learn how to HO really good and then you don't have to worry about the "fight" which I believe the "game" here we are talking about is really about. I would rather fight 20 fights in a row against you and never win a single one as long as each fight lasted more than the 15 seconds a HO provides. The thrill of this game shouldn't be how many kills you have listed on the scoreboard, but the fun you have trying to get those kills.

Teaching people how to avoid the HO...which to me is pretty much the same as not going for the HO... will promote better fights because people will learn to fight better.

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2010, 12:44:09 PM »
Quintuple post, lol!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 03:11:34 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2010, 12:50:01 PM »
Quintuple post, lol!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 03:11:17 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2010, 12:53:37 PM »
Quintuple post, lol!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 03:10:52 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2010, 12:54:35 PM »
Quintuple post, lol!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 03:10:32 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2010, 01:09:30 PM »
Teaching people how to avoid the HO...which to me is pretty much the same as not going for the HO... will promote better fights because people will learn to fight better.

I agree, to a point...

What I all-to-often see though, from people who are "against" HOing, is what I consider "sloppy", reckless, too-close, bad position merges that should get them killed via HO, in an effort to get a better position 2 seconds later.  "Safety" or "immunity" from HO's seems to lead to a sense of right or wrong, which IMO, makes the fights ridiculously artificial.

They can get away with those merges, if their opponent declines the shot opportunity, out of some sort of what, honor?  But, these are the same guys who are vocal about calling people names because they take the shot...  Right off, if someone complains about an HO, I suspect they have a flawed merge.  If they didn't, the HO wouldn't be a factor.  They wouldn't mind if someone took that shot...

And, again, holding off on that shot IMO leads to a waste of a fight (depending on the motive).  Who cares about the rest of the fight, if it's based on a bogus start?  If the motive is "honor" or "make the fight last" or some such, I have no respect for that.  If the motive is one of self-preservation, passing on the HO because it may lead to damage, and passing because it increases your chances of survival, I'm all for it.

And yes, even though I never consider the HO a "good" option, it very well may be the "best" option, or even the "only" option.  To lose the fight because you passed a shot opportunity because it isn't "special" enough is wasting my time.  I'd honestly rather have you kill me with an HO, than die because you chose not to shoot.  Beating you in that situation holds no appeal.  You're letting me win, so why would I want to win?

A guns-cold initial merge is bogus, IMO, even though I'll never open with an HO.  IMO, if a fight opens guns-cold, it's bogus, and I have no interest in it, or its outcome.  It's like saying "OK, new rule- no going for the QB on the first down".  Wanna duel?  Lets duel!  None of this sissy, pansy, no face-shooting rule stuff.  I have guns, look out!  Wanna have a good fight?  Earn it.  Don't expect a free pass.

When I work with people, I never advocate going for an HO shot.  I also never ask them to avoid it.  When we work on merges, they'll often ask "Guns cold on the first merge?"  And I'll always answer "LOL, no!  If you have a shot, and want to take it, go for it!" "If you think you can hit me, you'd better try!  It's the whole point of aerial combat".

"Learn how to HO really good"?  Why not?  It's as valid a tactic as any...  It's a very simple tactic, that's simple to avoid/defeat, so I wouldn't say it's all anyone would want to learn, but why not?  It's no less valid tactic-wise than a BRD, or immel, or scissors, or whatever.  They're all designed to put lead on target.

Teaching people not to HO can best be done by letting them HO.  It's a low-percentage tactic.  They'll die as a result, practically every time they try it against a competent pilot.  By dying repeatedly, they'll probably desire to learn a better tactic.  Right there, HOing is leading to better fights...  But for the right reasons.  Not from some sort of flawed sense of "honor", or because they want longer fights (which are the wrong reasons to avoid the HO) but because they want to fly/kill more efficiently (which is the right reason to avoid the HO).

And "teaching them not to HO" is a poor choice of words, IMO.  I don't want to teach them NOT to do it, I want to teach them a better option.
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17729
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2010, 02:44:23 PM »
Holy Cow  :O you don't have to post it 5 times !!!  LOL!!

I agree with if a plane is in the cone of fire of my plane yes it should be a green light to fire, however someone looking for a fight will NOT be in that area with guns blazing. I would think teaching someone to maneuver for a shot that doesn't put them in that cone would be preferable. even in training I would think that a merge should be as far from a HO as you can get.

You will take any shot provided, I won't. It's not some code of honor, I just don't want to win that way. If I should mess up and get into the HO position I made the mistake and figure I lost anyway. Should they miss I get another chance to correct my mistake before they can shot my cartoon plane down. If the other guys messes up....or continues to try for the HO I set-up my next pass better, trying to stay out of his cone of fire and look for my shot.

Again, why go for the HO, it puts the other guys guns on you. Not all of us have as good a shot as mtnman  :D

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2010, 03:15:23 PM »
Holy Cow  :O you don't have to post it 5 times !!!  LOL!!

I agree with if a plane is in the cone of fire of my plane yes it should be a green light to fire, however someone looking for a fight will NOT be in that area with guns blazing. I would think teaching someone to maneuver for a shot that doesn't put them in that cone would be preferable. even in training I would think that a merge should be as far from a HO as you can get.

You will take any shot provided, I won't. It's not some code of honor, I just don't want to win that way. If I should mess up and get into the HO position I made the mistake and figure I lost anyway. Should they miss I get another chance to correct my mistake before they can shot my cartoon plane down. If the other guys messes up....or continues to try for the HO I set-up my next pass better, trying to stay out of his cone of fire and look for my shot.

Again, why go for the HO, it puts the other guys guns on you. Not all of us have as good a shot as mtnman  :D

And again, I'm not saying "Go for the HO". 

And I won't take "any shot provided". 

Read...  Comprehend... 

I'm saying "Any shot, including the HO, is fine".  It's your job to shoot the other guy, it's his job to shoot you.  Who's job is it to not shoot?
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline 2bighorn

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2010, 03:18:59 PM »
"Learn how to HO really good"?  Why not?  It's as valid a tactic as any...  It's a very simple tactic, that's simple to avoid/defeat, so I wouldn't say it's all anyone would want to learn, but why not?  It's no less valid tactic-wise than a BRD, or immel, or scissors, or whatever.  They're all designed to put lead on target.

In most of the cases, HO isn't valid tactic, especially not when you have dozen of better options.
HO should always be the least desirable option.


That said, you figured it out in your last two paragraphs anyway...


 

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2010, 03:33:22 PM »
In most of the cases, HO isn't valid tactic, especially not when you have dozen of better options.
HO should always be the least desirable option.


That said, you figured it out in your last two paragraphs anyway...

I'd say it's always valid...  Unless someone can give me a situation where it isn't "valid"?  It's as valid as shooting from any other angle, at any other part of your opponents plane.

Always desirable?  No.  Efficient?  No.  The "best" option?  Not always...

MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline 2bighorn

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2010, 04:00:17 PM »
I'd say it's always valid...

No. Whenever you have better option, HO isn't valid tactic.


It's as valid as shooting from any other angle, at any other part of your opponents plane.

No. In HO situation you put yourself in harms way. When shooting from other angles, you don't. Huge difference.


The "best" option?  Not always...

Not always? Lets say almost never...

Offline grizz441

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7000
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2010, 05:36:01 PM »
When you are defending a base against insurmountable odds, the HOing Hurricane all of a sudden because the most viable option.

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Reviewing the "HO"
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2010, 06:10:07 PM »
No. Whenever you have better option, HO isn't valid tactic.


No. In HO situation you put yourself in harms way. When shooting from other angles, you don't. Huge difference.


Not always? Lets say almost never...

You've described times where the HO isn't the best, or most desirable option.  I don't see any where it isn't a valid option though. 

It looks like you're saying you can't put yourself in harm's way.  Why not? 

Many people put themselves in harm's way with poor merges- does that make their choice of merge invalid?  What about Fugitive's comment- "I would rather fight 20 fights in a row against you and never win a single one as long as each fight lasted more than the 15 seconds a HO provides" in the context of on my merge I present him with an "HO" shot, but he chooses not to take it?  He's put himself in harms way, when he could have ended the fight...  Would that make his choice invalid?  By your statement, it looks like it would...

It looks like you're saying you can't pick the option that isn't "the best", or at least that you can't pick the option that someone else feels isn't "the best".  Why not?  Who says you can't?  Who gets to decide that someone's choice of maneuver or tactic isn't valid? Being undesirable doesn't make it invalid.

Why can't someone HO every single time, if they want to?  Why would an experienced pilot be concerned about that?

And (not pointing fingers at anyone), I can't help but see the irony in this discussion.  "Experienced", skilled pilots, concerned about a choice that's seen as showing inexperience, or lack of skill?  The "stigma" of the HO is certainly not one that came from beginners...  On the contrary, I see the beginners mirroring the belittling HO comments of the "vets", in an effort to fit in (on 200, for example).  The HO looks like a "chink in the armor" to



MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson