HO Philosphy

[jimson]

Gamey crap. Problems created.

LOL, guess there is no solution.

[Lusche]

LOL, guess there is no solution.

There is not even a problem.

[nrshida]

The ethical argument is an odd one, IMO. 

It's not an 'argument' mtnman, I'm not trying to convince people not to HO if they want to, that's their choice and I suppose on reflection there is a sort of balance here and I shouldn't feel bad about exploiting since I have been taught here that you shouldn't do it.

I was more disagreeing with bustr's Colt merge idea and ruminating on my thoughts over it rather than trying to provide an argument. Like I say, I don't really lose either way.

[Melvin]

nrshida hates anything cowboy related.

Had Bustr referred to it as the "Douglas Fairbanks Maneuver", nrshida would be fully on board.


 

[Murdr]

Code the front silhouette of fighter aircraft as super armored, leave one space about the size of the prop hub as unarmored. Give manned gunners special ammo that pierces this shield.

You can still Ho but you have to place a perfect bullseye for it to be effective.

Problem solved.

Back in AW, there was a system that rejected  97% of HO "hits".  This allowed players to be lazy at the merge because they really did not have to guard against a head on shot, which one could argue is a problem if your goal is air combat simulation.  Head on attack is a valid tactic, but again the problem arises because many players who should know better still deploy it like a 2 week noob.

[Mar]

The ethical argument is an odd one, IMO. 

If you feel it unethical to exploit the advantages an opponent hands you due to his HO attempt, can I assume you'd also feel it unethical to exploit the advantages he hands you if he makes any other poor tactical decision?

Would you consider it equally unethical to exploit a left roll made by your opponent, when he should have rolled right?  Or to exploit the advantage you'd have if he pulls up too early, or too late, or goes up when he should have gone down?  Or if he fails to drop flaps (or lift them) when he should?  What if his throttle control is horrid, and that gives you an advantage? 

Would you exploit it?  Belittle him for it?  Try to shame him for it?

After all, his intentions in maneuvering are the same in all cases...  He's trying to get some rounds into you.

I really do fail to see how "ethics" can be used as an argument here, unless it's in favor of allowing the HO tactic.

You completely missed the point.

Example: A guy who is trying to improve his merge gets advice from someone else who says it's better to turn early. He then encounters me, turns too early and I get right on his six immediately. If he asks how I did it, should I just remain smug and silent, allowing him to believe that he just has no hope of getting to my level, or should I tell him what happened, how to avoid it, etc?

[nrshida]

Yes Mar, that's what I meant. Thank you. 

[bustr]

When you make your credit card contractual agreement with HTC there is no stipulation in it that you will be considered anathma for the use of game tactics other wise than stipulated in that agreement.

Subsiquently as a loosly associated mob, feeling the entitalment of years in grade or elevated skillz. That you have the right to label and harass other customers as bad or lesser men for choosing to play this game differently than what you favor. Based on "No Such Rule" that does not exist in anyone's customer agreement contract with HTC.

Sounds like contractual law "logical nonsense" 101. You have to separate the logic from the nonsense and show a bias for the nonsense. Well gentelemen. At least you are not wearing anything other than the Internet to hide your identities.
#----------------

This is a kids game dominated by adults playing in a fish bowl under mob rule. Who seem to not beleive all paying customers $14.95 is as good as their $14.95 becasue of how long they have been associated with this game or based on their AUWSUMMM skillzzz.

So which is it gents. You are better than everyone else because you have been here longer? Or you got the skillz which makes everthing you do and say always right?

Or is everyone's $14.95 exactly equal making everyone's choice to how they play this game exactly equal?

Don't resort to the egalitarian canard of experience or skillz helps you to have a better feel for whats good for the whole community. Thats HTC's job whom we pay the same $14.95 to be the legal responsible party making those decisions. We pay a fee to play a kids game, not to take part in a customer driven group social engineering experiment agianst our will. You are a mob passing judgement on customers not part of your lose affinity group. They pay the same $14.95 as you for how they choose to fly their airplanes and press a button to go piu, piu piu in a cartoon game. You as a collective have mutualy decided that's not good enough.

The "Samual Colt" manuver works, and is a bite when you get caught by it. And it feels so unfair in the face of years of experience or auwsum skillz that you can be stopped with such a simple childs tactic. Do you see anybody but the time in grade and skillz guys complaining about the "Samual Colt" manuver while carrying on a campaign to personaly stigmatize it's users year after year?

As long as HTC does not make it a game offence to use the "Samual Colt" manuver. You as a group are 100% wrong in stigmatising any player for using it in any manner they choose. Your only honest recourse within the rules of the game is to Wishlist HTC for the disabling of the function globaly. Barring that, polish your "Samual Colt" evasion skillz.

[mtnman]

It's not an 'argument' mtnman, I'm not trying to convince people not to HO if they want to, that's their choice and I suppose on reflection there is a sort of balance here and I shouldn't feel bad about exploiting since I have been taught here that you shouldn't do it.

Agreed... 

If I felt bad about exploiting an advantage I'd never be able to shoot anyone down, lol!

[Debrody]

Bustr,
since i dont know the AH players personally, i only can judge them by their cartoon acts. Why i shouldnt form an opinion about the ones who arent willing to improve just going for the easyest way to shoot something?
If i am right its a pay to play game, everyone is paying for their fun ergo if someone is trying to ruin your fun you got the rights to tell your opinion on the BBS.
Since there are a couple free "simply piu piu" games around, i think the card what this, otherwise very expensive game has is the complexity of the air combat maneuvering it can offer. If some persons are ignoring this, i think they are degrading this game, what is wrong. Couse up, climb straight to 10k, fly straight to the nearest enemy base then ho the first boogey that comes ahead is definiately degrading the fun, the value of this game.

Dont let me wrong, im not a saint. If someone played the ho-run-repeat game, i hoed him back after the third pass, if many were ganging me and they tryed to shoot my face, i shot back, but in an equal situation, let it be 1v1 or many vs many, nope, thats definiately something to avoid in my book. If i have flown 7-8-10 mins to interact that other person in the cartoon spitty, i prefer that interaction to last as long as possible. If they try to shortcut it, i got the rights to "stigmatize" them cuz in that way i get less action in my flying time ergo less value for my 15 bux, ergo those are stealing my money even if they dont do it directly. Why should i respect them? Why should i care about their opinion about me? In the other hand if someone has the spark of the willing to get better, improve, do complex moves and have fun, i will show him respect. Thats why (i think) some consider me as someone yet many think im a noone.

Flame me, hoin bastages, cheers cartoon pilots.

[mtnman]

The problem comes in when players lean on the HO as their one and only move. Using "ethics" or belittling" a player is a tool to turn people away from what the "majority" believe as a cheap tactic and hopefully push people into exploring other ways to "win" a fight so as to increase the quality of the fights in the game.

At least that is the way I took it when I came here. "kill macros" were a big thing in AWIII, but when I came here they were frowned upon. Community "pressure" stopped us AW guys from using them. Now I'm thankful it was frowned on. Can you imagine what the text buffer would look like these days with all those kill macros going by WITH all the stuff that we already have? whew! Another folly nipped in the bud.

Shaming a player into NOT using the HO on every pass? I'm ok with that, it will make a better fighter out of him, and increases the chance of me running into some one who fights back.

I understand the sentiment; I've just never seen it as effective or realistic.

I've had a fair amount of experience in the game, and have simply never run across an opponent who I felt leaned on the HO as their one and only move.  Never.  Every single person who's ever attempted an HO on me is willing to turn and try to shoot me from many different angles.

I've also been witness to literally thousands of incidents where someone belittled or attempted to shame someone for using the HO.  I've never, however, seen the "belittler" or "shamer" come across looking like anyone worth emulating.  IMO, they always come across as whiners at absolute best, but often as loud-mouthed bullies as well.  Not any semblance of being a "positive role model" that someone would strive to emulate.  (I'm basing this observation on words/text, not skill).

I've also trained GOBS of folks.  I've never yet had someone approach me, striving to improve, based on belittling comments they'd gotten.  Invariably, they were there looking to improve because they were simply driven to do better.  Not because they felt shamed into improving...

And, honestly, I see those who vocally denounce the HO as being responsible for a large part of it's popularity.  People are HOing (at least in part) because people tell them not to.  Anytime a "dangerous" player admits to being shot down by a "newb" HOing, it makes the HO look effective.  That makes people want to try it.  It also makes it look like the HO is a way to break into an experienced pilot's armor, so to speak.

[mtnman]

You completely missed the point.

Example: A guy who is trying to improve his merge gets advice from someone else who says it's better to turn early. He then encounters me, turns too early and I get right on his six immediately. If he asks how I did it, should I just remain smug and silent, allowing him to believe that he just has no hope of getting to my level, or should I tell him what happened, how to avoid it, etc?

Yup, I completely missed that point.  From the text I read I never realized we were talking about a training session of sorts.

If they ask, sure, I'd always think you should try to help them out with an explanation.

Offering an explanation for every kill I make in the MA, however, might make me appear smug, so I don't do that.  I generally don't offer too much unsolicited help or advice in the MA.

[bustr]

Debrody,

You are irrelavant to the core of this argument. Becasue all of your arguments or answers are always "me" centric and indicate a hostility to anyone you decide is your inferior. That would in spirit describe you as a biased hostile withness, while supporting the assertion of the existance of a group of like minded players in the game via reviewing your past associations for patterns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HO argument is the fundemental right of players who are not like minded to the "time in grade" and "thee skillz" players "loose afilliation group", to play the game in any manner they choose wihout stigma of active social denigration or imposed social engineering.

None in these groups are HTC employees as far as I can determin, so have no authority to interfere with any players choice of playing the game as long as the players adhere to the general conduct clause in the HTC customer contract. HTC has functions in place to report poor conduct and unnamed mods to watch us in the arenas.

There is no HTC game conduct rule that says you cannot point your aircraft to the face of another aircraft and fire at them to your hearts content. 

This injustice to the non-like minded players of the afor mentioned "loose associative group" is predicated on 2 lies.

A lie of omission and a premeditated lie.

The lie of ommision is to never tell the target of the denigration that face on shooting aircraft to aircraft is abosolutly acceptable to HTC. And no rule exists to grant moral authority to anyone to adjudicate it in the name of the social health of the game.

The lie of premeditation is to not tell the target of denigration that the manuver is something you personaly dislike and thats why you are denigrating the targeted player opposed to convienient canard, supporting the health of the game. The premeditation of this lie is assuming the mantle of moral authority to justify your action and to hide behind knowing it's a lie.

Show me this rule in writing from HTC:

You cannot point your aircraft to the face of another aircraft and fire at them.

Or knock this off and Wishlist HTC to disable the ability of aircraft to fire their guns when oriented face to face.

[morfiend]

Back in AW, there was a system that rejected  97% of HO "hits".  This allowed players to be lazy at the merge because they really did not have to guard against a head on shot, which one could argue is a problem if your goal is air combat simulation.  Head on attack is a valid tactic, but again the problem arises because many players who should know better still deploy it like a 2 week noob.

 This pretty much covers it!     Although Mntman takes it abit farther I agree with both.

   In FSO this past Friday I was shot in the face,was I upset,sure but not at the guy who shot me but myself for placing my plane in that position. Admittedly,I didnt see him till the last second I was busy watching the 2 guys chasing me when I looked forward and got whacked.

  It's a game,have fun.    My mother taught me 2 things,you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar and if you dont have anything good to say dont say anything at all.


   

[Debrody]

Allright, i give it up, its totally worthless. I tryed to explain why it might not to be the best for them (fun factor), why its the worst for me (fun factor), at the end im just arguing with myself.
Go Hoers, see how many are standing behind you, have so much "fun". I cant stand you, you can hate me too.
out, DOH.