The HO

[nrshida]

...Which somehow doesn't occur if the other guy avoids his HO, then kills him in a turn or two?  It seems like some people think the single bestest way to get people interested in ACM is to whine about HOs and shun people who do it while browbeating them.

I'm not quite following you. I thought you were asking if there was any advantage for the less knowledgeable player not to try and HO, and get killed two turns later instead. I'm not thinking short-term with my observation.

[Arlo]

I'm not quite following you. I thought you were asking if there was any advantage for the less knowledgeable player not to try and HO, and get killed two turns later instead. I'm not thinking short-term with my observation.

Perhaps its the methodology.

[Wiley]

I'm not quite following you. I thought you were asking if there was any advantage for the less knowledgeable player not to try and HO, and get killed two turns later instead. I'm not thinking short-term with my observation.

What I'm saying is, if he gets HOed down 20-30 times in a row versus getting killed in 1 or 2 turns 20-30 times in a row, his experience is not significantly improved.  His fun factor has not been materially increased.  I would point out that getting manhandled 30 times in a row in 2 turns might actually encourage the guy to take the face shot because he's likely going to win a couple of those hodowns and it will appear in the short term to be more effective than dying consistently by not taking it.

My point is, you ace pile-its should be showing them the HO is ineffective by dodging it and proving it to them, rather than by browbeating them because it's "not cricket" because all you're effectively saying is, "ACM works unless the other guy's actually trying to kill you."

Wiley.

[Oldman731]

My point is, you ace pile-its should be showing them the HO is ineffective by dodging it and proving it to them, rather than by browbeating them because it's "not cricket"

That's a pretty good point.

- oldman

[100Coogn]

Most times when I am in the position to take/receive a HO shot, I will hold my fire and hope the other guy does too. 
Almost always, we will pass each other and then the fun begins.
There are nights though it seems the other player always fires, when I'm thinking 'ok this is going to be a fair fight'.  On those occasions I'll grab a Mossie.

Coogan 

[nrshida]

What I'm saying is, if he gets HOed down 20-30 times in a row versus getting killed in 1 or 2 turns 20-30 times in a row, his experience is not significantly improved.

Not that evening no.

My point is, you ace pile-its should be showing them the HO is ineffective by dodging it and proving it to them, rather than by browbeating them because it's "not cricket" because all you're effectively saying is, "ACM works unless the other guy's actually trying to kill you."

Well you've pretty well described exactly what I used to do at the lake. I had to teach myself to avoid and later exploit it because it was so common. At the same time the culture condoned it. When the topic comes up periodically I sometimes suggest why it's a bad thing to do for yourself from an ACM perspective. However 'put yourself in the other fellows gunsight - get shot' I once read around here someplace. Seems reasonable.

[Arlo]

Most times when I am in the position to take/receive a HO shot, I will hold my fire and hope the other guy does too. 

Every time I read this (and its been said/posted often) it makes me laugh.

AH isn't a game of 'hope and chivalry.' Dodge, fire .... but enough with the 'hope' stuff.

Anyone ever ask themselves why HT didn't model AW's forward cone of semi-invulnerability from HOs?

[Wiley]

Not that evening no.

Fugi's contention was that the HO drives away newbies because they will die to it a lot.

Well you've pretty well described exactly what I used to do at the lake. I had to teach myself to avoid and later exploit it because it was so common. At the same time the culture condoned it. When the topic comes up periodically I sometimes suggest why it's a bad thing to do for yourself from an ACM perspective.

I don't think I've ever seen the culture "condone HOs" outside of Pacific scenarios/FSOs.  I agree, there are better options than the HO on the merge.

However 'put yourself in the other fellows gunsight - get shot' I once read around here someplace. Seems reasonable.

Precisely.  Finding yourself in position to be shot down by the enemy is commonly referred to as "losing the fight."  Doing it intentionally as your first move and hoping the guy doesn't fire is lunacy.  May as well stick your hand in the lion's mouth and then whine when he bites you.

Wiley.

[100Coogn]

Every time I read this (and its been said/posted often) it makes me laugh.

AH isn't a game of 'hope and chivalry.' Dodge, fire .... but enough with the 'hope' stuff.

Anyone ever ask themselves why HT didn't model AW's forward cone of semi-invulnerability from HOs?

True, it doesn't always pan out my way.  I have yet to rage quit over it though.

Coogan

[nrshida]

My point is, you ace pile-its should be showing them the HO is ineffective by dodging it and proving it to them,

Additionally, dodging it isn't all you get with a decent merge though. You also gain angles and e. But I long ago gave up trying to influence people positively in this regard. As Stan Laurel once said - 'You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.'

[nrshida]

I don't think I've ever seen the culture "condone HOs" outside of Pacific scenarios/FSOs.

I meant to say did not condone / did not approve... I must slow down sometimes.

[Wiley]

Additionally, dodging it isn't all you get with a decent merge though. You also gain angles and e. But I long ago gave up trying to influence people positively in this regard. As Stan Laurel once said - 'You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.'

I guess it's just a pet peeve.  We could be doing so much better than "HO BAD!  HO PEOPLE BAD PEOPLE!" to teach new guys.  Especially when people set themselves up as some kind of guru with that attitude.

I meant to say did not condone / did not approve... I must slow down sometimes.

Heh.  It amazes me how often I type the opposite of what I mean to say too.

Wiley.

[JunkyII]

Fugi's contention was that the HO drives away newbies because they will die to it a lot.


I don't think I've ever seen the culture "condone HOs" outside of Pacific scenarios/FSOs.  I agree, there are better options than the HO on the merge.

Precisely.  Finding yourself in position to be shot down by the enemy is commonly referred to as "losing the fight."  Doing it intentionally as your first move and hoping the guy doesn't fire is lunacy.  May as well stick your hand in the lion's mouth and then whine when he bites you.

Wiley.

No Newbies will die a lot because that's what baby seals do....but the initial point is nobody should be telling them to take a HO shot....they are stunting their ACM potential.

Your example of 30 HOs vs 30 death to 2 turns...A player will learn more about the merge,  angles, energy management in the fights they last 2 turns then they would in a joust.

Literally made this post after an AH Trainer said on 200 HOs are ok when it was 3 v 1 and they had the alt advantage....so he was saying it's OK to give a gun solution to a lower plane when there's 2 friendly helping him kill that plane....THAT'S STUPID. And it is evident that it is being shown to newbs because people are going for HO shots in terrible situations, you see it all the time and you watch people who have all the advantages in ACM die because they are ignorant.

[Wiley]

Your example of 30 HOs vs 30 death to 2 turns...A player will learn more about the merge,  angles, energy management in the fights they last 2 turns then they would in a joust.

Yep.  He'll learn even more if he learns to merge so that he's not giving the other guy a good shot on the way in.

Wiley.

[nrshida]

Heh.  It amazes me how often I type the opposite of what I mean to say too.

I've got the dyslexics. On reflection I was probably thinking of the word condemned.

I guess it's just a pet peeve.  We could be doing so much better than "HO BAD!  HO PEOPLE BAD PEOPLE!" to teach new guys.  Especially when people set themselves up as some kind of guru with that attitude.

I really don't think being either critical or encouraging makes that much diffference. Stan Laurel knew his stuff. This particular thread's been up for 10 days and had 581 reads. Even though I've eluded how much you can exploit the merge HO, not a single person has asked once how to do it technically nor asked for a tutorial or a specific training session.

Learning in a game is perhaps considered work these days.