Reviewing the "HO"

[Kermit de frog]

Who'd of thunk it that HO'n could have an entire book written about it.  HO'n, the lost art revived. <<---working title in progress.

If you enjoy HO'n people, or taking shots on others while being in front of their 3/9 line, do not complain or get disturbed if others do these things to you.

[The Fugitive]

The best site in the game is when I see someone pushing their nose off line from mine. It shows me I'm in for a fight and he is already going for position. I don't bother looking for a "front quarter" shoot I go for position too and the fight is on !

Personally I think that those seeing that move before the merge and continue to force a HO merge or a front Quarter shot is someone looking to end a fight WITHOUT fighting for it.

[mtnman]

I think your main point has alot more to do with FQ shots than true HO shots MTN.

This is where again I think you are merging the line between a HO shot and a FQ shot.

I wonder why the distinction is asked for (or made) by so many?  What does it really matter?  It doesn't, for any other shot possibility!

Let's say I shoot you from the six o'clock position, and you mention it to  one of your squadies.  How do you describe the shot? 

Just, "MtnMan shot me"?  Or "MtnMan shot me from the direct six o'clock position".  Or "MtnMan shot me from the rear, about 2 degrees left of dead six, and maybe a degree or two low".  I'm guessing the first option is the most "normally used" description.  Now, consider the same issue, where I shoot you from the right side.  How do you describe it?

If you use the first option as a description, what are the chances any of your squadies would ask for more clarity?  As in "From the dead six?  Or slightly off of dead six?

Now look at the FQ shot.  Do you say "MtnMan shot me from the FQ"?  Or "MtnMan face-shot me".  Or is it a general "MtnMan HO'ed me"?  What do the squadies say?  "Really?  He HO'ed you?"  "You mean, an actual HO?  Or more of a FQ shot?"

When you really step back and look at the question of defining an HO vs a FQ shot, it really seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

So, I ask...  Where's the line, precisely, between an "illegitimate "HO, and a "legitimate" FQ shot?  (If we go with the idea that an HO is any less legitimate than any other shot, even though I still haven't seen any convincing (IMO) argument for that idea...)

And that would beg the questions- what would a fair estimate be, for FQ shots that are "labeled" as HO?  How common is a true HO in game?  How often is the "HO-dweeb" type stigma likely applied in error? 

Are there other shots we should consider deeming "illegitimate", in the interest of "better fights"?  Another shot option we could decline, in an effort to broadcast the "I want a REAL fight!" message to our opponent?

[mtnman]

Who'd of thunk it that HO'n could have an entire book written about it.  HO'n, the lost art revived. <<---working title in progress.

If you enjoy HO'n people, or taking shots on others while being in front of their 3/9 line, do not complain or get disturbed if others do these things to you.

An awful short book, I think.  This is still just page two?  Maybe we'll make three?

I think I also missed the posted who apparently enjoys HO'n?  And who was disturbed by the other player shooting at him?  Maybe that's all of us?

I can easily see why someone would choose (for themselves) to limit themselves to shots from only behind the 3/9 line...  I wonder though, if that limit means anything at all, if that player chose "less self-limiting" options, or "less valiant", or "less honorable" options at other points in the game (or even in the same sortie)...  Could we assume that this type of player would also limit themselves against participating in a 2v1, for example, for similar reasons?  What about attacking with advantage in other respects?

To say "I'll only fire from behind the 3/9 line, but it's ok for me to fight someone 2v1, or "pick" someone", is kind of like saying "I don't steal suckers from little kids, but I will take their lunch money".  Right?  Especially if the decision to limit yourself to shots from behind the 3/9 is supposedly in the name of promoting "good" fights...

[humble]

The initial thought behind the post was to remove the drama and focus on the realities.

As a general summary it's apparent that good players generally see see an attempted HO as an opportunity. Newer and weaker (in the sense of ACM) players see it as an opportunity. Good players naturally position themselves to not only avoid the shot but to capitalize on the attempt under most circumstances. If we view a FQ shot as an extension of intent we see the same thing happening. Good players routinely pass on low % FQ shots that would bleed E or sacrifice position while offering those same shots routinely. In fact the biggest problem for a newer player vs an established vet is that he often feels he's winning when he's really just being set up. That is a separate topic that we can hopefully address in another thread.

For now the important distinction is that as a general rule most would tend to agree that under most circumstances the attempted HO has a limited potential for success and significant downside vs a seasoned pilot who is aware of your approach and focused on you. The object here is to try and provide a bit of the how and why and encourage the continued exploration of alternative options.

[FireDrgn]

MTman     Here i go again...............  Your arguments  imply a definition.     So in your reality you have already defined them.  I am asking you straight up what is your definition of a HO....... ?

I read your post as an argument to redefine  HO and Front Quarter shot as the same thing  .. OR to the point were you dont believe they warrant a seperate  definition.   

<S>

[Sonicblu]

You cant explore or argue a point if we don't agree on a definition.

HO's almost don't exist in the game. Reasons: ( ho defined as both having a gunsolution )

1. As soon as one pilot moves out of plane there is no HO

2. If the pilot doesn't shoot there is no HO

I think one of the reasons that it is advantageous to ho for a new player is that is how the gain an advantage! The other guy is going for angles to win the fight nothing else. I bet that if the guy going for angles has a shot the next merge he will kill the other plane. All this talk about exploring the fight and learning something is bs  in the arenas NOT once have I fought a vet or newb that held fire if he had a shot where he could kill me on the second pass. The only reason they hold fire is they dont have a shot pure and simple. There is no disadvantage to not HO in the arenas that I can think of in terms of %.  We claim things like is a 50/50 at best, compared to what?

If a new player doesnt ho the other plane and kill or damage him it is 90% sure that on the next merge or two he will die. The vet will kill him 99% of the time.
Other wise all the vets would fly and hold fire until they are at a dead six, if they really wanted to acm it out. Still the other guy is going to die.

 I can see why a new player will take a 50/50 ho shot over a 90% death rate anytime. Or at least damage the other plane and gain an advantage that way.

The no HO debate i believe only works with two equaly skilled pilots who do want the fight to be about acm skill and not just gunnery.

The ho may have limited potential for success, again compared to what. Now we are defining it as "attempted ho" that is a huge difference than a ho where shots hit. Now that makes sense instead of hoing he takes away his only advantage and tries to acm with the other plane. That gives him a 99% death rate. Where as If he does HO he now as I would say better that 50/50 against a vet.

IF both planes HO then we have a different discussion and its a crap shoot.

[FireDrgn]

I guess that im beating a dead horse here  Sonic   but,.

I never get HOed unless I WANT TO.. ITs impossible... for someone else to HO me unless I choose  to have a gunsolution at the same time.  It is purely my responsibility not any one elses.  I personally  have no  problem giving an opportunity for a front quarter shot  so i can get position.

I see what your saying any player that takes the front quarter shot before the merge is doing so in their best interest.   50/50 or even 20/80 for a player is better than 99%  death rate if they dont. 

That being said If a player were to ask me I would tell them to stop using their bag of luck and fill their bag of experience.   I think that's the intent of this thread.

<S>
P.S.  the room really empties out when you asks for a definition.

[Kermit de frog]

An awful short book, I think.  This is still just page two?  Maybe we'll make three?

I think I also missed the posted who apparently enjoys HO'n?  And who was disturbed by the other player shooting at him?  Maybe that's all of us?

I can easily see why someone would choose (for themselves) to limit themselves to shots from only behind the 3/9 line...  I wonder though, if that limit means anything at all, if that player chose "less self-limiting" options, or "less valiant", or "less honorable" options at other points in the game (or even in the same sortie)...  Could we assume that this type of player would also limit themselves against participating in a 2v1, for example, for similar reasons?  What about attacking with advantage in other respects?

To say "I'll only fire from behind the 3/9 line, but it's ok for me to fight someone 2v1, or "pick" someone", is kind of like saying "I don't steal suckers from little kids, but I will take their lunch money".  Right?  Especially if the decision to limit yourself to shots from behind the 3/9 is supposedly in the name of promoting "good" fights...

In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight.  The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me.  There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success.  These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money.  1vMany is still a fight.

Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor.  In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there.  Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game.  To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion. 


Download
Choose "save as" option

"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."

[Ardy123]

If you rely on the ho, you wont get better. Often for new sticks, their first kills are ho shots. That being said, I feel its a progression.... Also, I do ho sometimes, esp if I'm out numbered or I sense the 2v1 quickly degrading into a 10v1. Also I'll ho bnzing pickers when I'm totally out numbered or others who just frustrate me because all they do is pick and run, then try and ho again. I'll slip them a little rudder and take the snap shot (although that may not technically be a ho but a 'front quarter shot'). So yes, I do ho on occasion, but I don't rely on it and would not spoil a 1v1 with it.

Skill progression
1) You ho every pass at everything all the time.
2) You BnZ and fly only to large numerically advantages situations and pick & ho
3) you get bored with doing the above, and strive to duel but loose and you learn to swallow your picker pride in order to learn something.
4) you become good after dieing 100,000+ times in the DA against much better sticks.
5) after a dieing millions of times, your still not as good as Grizz or Kazaa 

Now sadly many peoples ego make it challenging them to overcome step to and enter step 3 and thats where the HO shot becomes lame. It often prevents progression in the interests of preserving pride (and yes to some extent my above rational for ho'ing is about my ego lol).

[grizz441]

In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight.  The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me.  There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success.  These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money.  1vMany is still a fight.

Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor.  In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there.  Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game.  To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion. 

(Image removed from quote.)
Download
Choose "save as" option

"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."

I think it depends.  If you feel like the fight you are fighting is futile, then go ahead and HO the first chance you get.  If you think you can win it with ACMs then go for it.  That's pretty much the underlying rule for MA play.  HO, Fight, or Run.  Those are the choices.

[Kermit de frog]

I think it depends.  If you feel like the fight you are fighting is futile, then go ahead and HO the first chance you get.  If you think you can win it with ACMs then go for it.  That's pretty much the underlying rule for MA play.  HO, Fight, or Run.  Those are the choices.

Fighting is victory, victory is fighting.  What do you win if you HO?  Does the arena dictate how you fight, or do you?

If you lose without fighting, you've lost nothing,
If you win without fighting, you've won nothing,
If you lose by fighting, you've gained everything,
If you win by fighting, you've given everything.

Those are the choices.

[mechanic]

Just to clarify my possition:


HO = both players have gunsolution (or had gunsolution untill collision avoidance)  -  Cheap tactic and often disadvantageous to the HOer when they miss
FQ = perfectly valid shot anywhere else infront of the 3-9 line that I expect someone to take on me if I present it

I didnt think it was a topic about definitions. My comments should be pretty clear when I'm refering to HO shots or FQ shots. IMO, two very different circumstances.

S! to all, nice to have a debate and keep it civil  

[mtnman]

In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight.  The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me.  There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success.  These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money.  1vMany is still a fight.

Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor.  In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there.  Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game.  To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion. 

(Image removed from quote.)
Download
Choose "save as" option

"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."

1vMany isn't the analogy I used.  I didn't even use 1v2.

I used 2v1.  I actually left manyv1 out on purpose, as I felt it was going to be seen as an obvious gang bang.  So the question goes more like this I suppose, for clarity...

Is it ok for you to say "I won't take that kids candy, but it's ok for me and my friend/friends to do it together."  

If so, it's hypocritical (IMO) to use an anti-HO argument in any "fight quality" or "fight-effort" or "fight-honor" manner.  IMO, swarming/ganging is in violation of the "Death before Dishonor" idea.  It's winning with fighting very hard, and doesn't sound like the romantic view warriors are often seen in.

2v1, as you mention, should be a no-brainer to go for a shot behind the 3/9 line.  Heck, it's a lot easier and less risky in that situation too, isn't it?  Would you also go for a shot behind the 3/9 if you and three friends were "fighting" the same opponent? <hehe>

If I see or hear of someone claiming to avoid the HO for "honorable" reasons, and then see/hear of that person swarming/ganging/picking, that person's credibility is questionable, IMO.

[Kermit de frog]

1vMany isn't the analogy I used.  I didn't even use 1v2.

I used 2v1.  I actually left manyv1 out on purpose, as I felt it was going to be seen as an obvious gang bang.  So the question goes more like this I suppose, for clarity...

Is it ok for you to say "I won't take that kids candy, but it's ok for me and my friend/friends to do it together."  

If so, it's hypocritical (IMO) to use an anti-HO argument in any "fight quality" or "fight-effort" or "fight-honor" manner.  IMO, swarming/ganging is in violation of the "Death before Dishonor" idea.  It's winning with fighting very hard, and doesn't sound like the romantic view warriors are often seen in.

2v1, as you mention, should be a no-brainer to go for a shot behind the 3/9 line.  Heck, it's a lot easier and less risky in that situation too, isn't it?  Would you also go for a shot behind the 3/9 if you and three friends were "fighting" the same opponent? <hehe>

If I see or hear of someone claiming to avoid the HO for "honorable" reasons, and then see/hear of that person swarming/ganging/picking, that person's credibility is questionable, IMO.

I still do not understand your analogy.  Is the "taking candy" representing HO'n?  It appears to be in the first part when you say I will not take the candy when alone, but in your second part, you know I still won't HO even when with friends, so I think the candy is now becoming the "gang'n" part.  HO'n and ganging are being mixed, at least that is how I interpret your analogy.  Even so, the words below are more important to me than this current paragraph.


To fly in a mob is flying without fighting, for they are driven by selfish desires looking for the outcome instead of the journey.  To fly as wingmen, is to fight as a team in an elevated state, with order and purpose, driven by the journey itself.  Wingman fighting offers whole new challenges that go beyond yourself.

When I am one of the 2 in a 2v1, I will fight the enemy with my wingman, deploying the Fighting Wing doctrine or Loose Duece, depending on the situation.  This is not "ganging".  If one wingman dies, you've lost the 2v1 fight.  A new battle begins, as the fight is now a 1v1.  If I am one of the 4 in a 4v1, I'd probably use the Fighting Wing, with 2 as high cover and the other 2 creating a 2v1 fight.  The 2 in the 2v1 could then go further and use Loose Duece tactics.  The enemy is then challenged with gaining the offensive on either one, ultimately attempting to achieve a 1v1.  When that occurs, the other 2 as top cover have the choice of coming down to fight as a 3v1, which the enemy has shown is worthy of such odds, or allowing the 1v1 to continue while preserving top cover for future threats.

I agree with you when you say "swarming/ganging/picking" is dishonorable.  Only so many friendlies can fight a single enemy plane before mob rules and fighting is lost.