Do you fly with honor?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It is a game. We are here for entertainment, healthy competition and maybe a little immersion. I'm not overly concerned with the elusive "honor."

 

It's just the overtly douchey F-U moves by some cut into the FUN way more than any claim on immersion or simulating. There is no lasting claim of dominance on a leader board and no war to be won here.

[BraveSirRobin]

A good example of what happens when you take a video game happened to me this weekend. I was playing RoF, got into a dogfight with some Fokker, and a camel came in and joined. The Fokker and camel then hit each other head on. "Idiot" said the Fokker pilot. "Why would you take a shot you knew you couldn't make? People don't value lives these days" he continued. To which, I replied "it's just a game". He then went on to say "well, this is a SIMULATOR, it's supposed to be SERIOUS, and IMMERSIVE". I then replied with "it may be a simulator, but if you take it too seriously, you'll lose sight of what it really is".

That's it. He didn't reply to that.

 

Sorry, I agree with the Fokker pilot.  Suicidal idiots who don't care if they die are pretty annoying.

[Livai]

I then replied with "it may be a simulator, but if you take it too seriously, you'll lose sight of what it really is".

 

And now with Oculus Rift................

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLcSgC_eIw

[[CPT]milopugdog]

Sorry, I agree with the Fokker pilot. Suicidal idiots who don't care if they die are pretty annoying.

There's a difference between being suicidal, and understanding the threats being in a dogfight with multiple people can pose

[BraveSirRobin]

There's a difference between being suicidal, and understanding the threats being in a dogfight with multiple people can pose

 

It's a difference without a distinction to the person who gets rammed by the idiot who doesn't really care if he survives the fight.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Sorry, I agree with the Fokker pilot.  Suicidal idiots who don't care if they die are pretty annoying.

 

And they ruin the fun for those of us who do take the hobby seriously.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

No reason to get so worked up though - a new or careless pilot makes for a good target. It is one's choice to accept the head-on pass. Those are easy to defeat and if the enemy is flying by the piper you can make short work of them.

[BraveSirRobin]

No reason to get so worked up though - a new or careless pilot makes for a good target. It is one's choice to accept the head-on pass. Those are easy to defeat and if the enemy is flying by the piper you can make short work of them.

 

A person who doesn't care if they survive has lots of advantages in a fight.  They can fly much more aggressively.  If they're very good that is a big advantage.

[Lusekofte]

I really enjoy servers that got players dedicated to do what the mission maker design it for. It is no fun if I can hit every target un opposed. In COD you have servers for dogfights and servers for objective. We have it here too, but it is a damn great deal of difference. In some servers you meet a dedicated flight of fighters shooting down my bomber for the sole purpose of preventing me bombing some of their assets, in others you meet single fighters up for a easy kill. 

In any of these situation I can thank myself for it, I flew alone. 

My point is , I meet the same people in both type of servers, but they take one "for fun" and the other "for serious" And I think we should acknowledge the fact that we are not who we appear one day, what we see on servers ar mostly the mood people are in

[[CPT]milopugdog]

It's a difference without a distinction to the person who gets rammed by the idiot who doesn't really care if he survives the fight.

I didn't say this since I think I didn't need to, but my position, and the camel entering the fight probably made him desperate to get rid of one of us. Yet if you're going to mutually enter a head on pass with a guy, and you end up hitting him, you have no reason to insult him in chat.

[BraveSirRobin]

Yet if you're going to mutually enter a head on pass with a guy, and you end up hitting him, you have no reason to insult him in chat.

 

He apparently did not think it was mutual.  In any case, his point about people who are reckless was dead on balls accurate.

[JGr2/J5_W0LF-]

For me and my Staflen, I instill nothing but Chivalry when it comes to flying, If we are engaged our main goal is to conserve our ammo. We make sure we identify our target first and foremost and then engage them until there is no threat. If a NME pilot is running we will attack but if hes going to ditch I'll let him ditch always flying by wing waving. We never chute kill either. I maybe old school but I still believe that pilots can have honor in their art.

 

Salute!

[Jade_Monkey]

What does chute kill do anyways? I thought you got the kill once you get the plane right?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

In WW2 experienced pilots who knew what they were up to would engage in head-on passes regularly whenever the armament was worth its salt (ie nose mounted cannon(s)). When the enemy is hell-bent into surviving, you can press an attack like that and force him to break, then have a well-positioned wingman sort him out. Pokryshkin and Rechkalov for example would accept head-on attacks with their wingmen during engagements with 109s over Kuban.

 

In a situation where lives were indeed at stake, the sight of four aircraft coming straight at you opening fire was probably unnerving enough. This often prompted the enemy fighters to disengage.

 

My point is, there is no reason for swearing at somebody for not attacking you the way you want them to attack. If they are on fire, then let them bring it and prepare for a good fight.

[BraveSirRobin]

What does chute kill do anyways? I thought you got the kill once you get the plane right?

 

You do.  It's just a way to be a bigger d-bag.

[Dakpilot]

What does chute kill do anyways? I thought you got the kill once you get the plane right?

 

I think it's the aerial version of tea-bagging..not that i know what that is 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[[CPT]milopugdog]

He apparently did not think it was mutual. In any case, his point about people who are reckless was dead on balls accurate.

I guess it was. When I look at head on passes, I think of how most people in War Thunder do them. They enter the head on, make no effort to move, then yell "fucking rammer" in chat. Just a really bad choice of engagement IMHO.

I think it's the aerial version of tea-bagging..not that i know what that is

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I think destroying their parachute, and leaving them to fall to death is worse.

[Jade_Monkey]

Haha i see. Its not fun if you dont dip them in ink first, that way there is more lasting evidence after.

[Lusekofte]

Head on attacks was a well used strategy by pilots on both sides , if they flew planes that benefitted such an approach. Bong in his P 38 used this as a rule. When LA f came along the pilots felt confident being the big engine and their cannons. Many stories about head on attacks where the pilots was not about to "chicken out" Referring to some US pilots interviews.

In this game I think collisions  mostly are due to mis calculations 

Edited March 29, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I avoid them at all costs. Where else do you gamble on 50/50 odds? Jink, then maneuver for a more favorable shot. Most head ons are completely avoidable. Until there are heavies to engage with my A8 on an inverted approach (I've never been successful with it but it's fun to try) I see no point in the tactic.

[Brano]

That suicidal guy in his virtual camel is maybe also suicidal in his real life. He just didn't have a chance to fly real camel yet

[[CPT]milopugdog]

That suicidal guy in his virtual camel is maybe also suicidal in his real life. He just didn't have a chance to fly real camel yet

Maybe he's suicidal because he only has a virtual camel.

[Gambit21]

 

I avoid them at all costs. Where else do you gamble on 50/50 odds? Jink, then maneuver for a more favorable shot. Most head ons are completely avoidable. Until there are heavies to engage with my A8 on an inverted approach (I've never been successful with it but it's fun to try) I see no point in the tactic.

 

Real pilots did it quite often though. Online I either avoid, (giving up a shot to take a shot as you say doesn't usually make sense)

 or if I'm feeling aggressive I dive underneath a bit to his cold side, wait...and pull up and give the guy a squirt from just underneath. I've gotten a lot of kills that way, but it 

takes careful timing.

I interviewed enough Mustang pilots for a book project to know head-on passes were quite common.

It's funny because despite the devastating cannons of the 190's, most of them felt they had an advantage in a head-on engagement with their .50 cals - just more lead

in the air I guess. I've never experienced a properly modeled .50 cal (looking at you old IL2) to really try and emulate this tactic in a .50 cal equipped plane.

[Beazil]

Regarding the issue of the mutual ram. 

 

Much to my chagrin ( I die in head on rammages a lot. )  they always lecture me that "it takes two to ram". 

 

Just throwing it out there for discussion.  I know it's been the pounding of many a desk and the death of many a joystick in my past.  How about you?  :D

 

Is it honorable to go out in a head on blaze of glory?  Is it a douche canoe move?  You decide!  *next on Geraldo!*

 

 

*ps - in the game I come from if it detects you ramming first before the enemy *YOU* die, not him.*

 

Edit:  my understanding is that the .50 cal is the closest they came to a lazor beam in wwii.  It certainly must have been a very effective round what with it's uber velocity and such.  I don't *think* it's changed much, but it's not like I own a lot of .50 cals.... so, call me ignorant on this one.

Edited March 30, 2016 by II./JG53_Beazil

[HagarTheHorrible]

Head on ramming requires two aircraft, so both are at fault. It is more the fault of the experienced pilot though. He should have the experience to better judge the situation and the skill to avoid it, don't blame the noob. Any ill judged coming together, unless deliberate, is as much a limitation of PC simming as it is of noobishness. Speed, distance and physical peril all take a back seat. I'm hopefull that VR, in the years to come, may help mitigate against this and accidental collisions will become far less frequent.

[Dave]

Real pilots did it quite often though. Online I either avoid, (giving up a shot to take a shot as you say doesn't usually make sense)

 or if I'm feeling aggressive I dive underneath a bit to his cold side, wait...and pull up and give the guy a squirt from just underneath. I've gotten a lot of kills that way, but it 

takes careful timing.

I interviewed enough Mustang pilots for a book project to know head-on passes were quite common.

It's funny because despite the devastating cannons of the 190's, most of them felt they had an advantage in a head-on engagement with their .50 cals - just more lead

in the air I guess. I've never experienced a properly modeled .50 cal (looking at you old IL2) to really try and emulate this tactic in a .50 cal equipped plane.

Real pilots did it only if it was advantageous. For example if they had massive weight of fire forward and a large radial engine to protect the pilot, then the odds were tipped their way in a head-on pass. But noob WarThunders do it almost by accident due to total target fixation and the overwhelming urge to point directly at their opponent at all times. They don't think E and they don't think about setting up for positional advantage later. They don't think about consequences either - because there are none.

 

It absolutely gives them an advantage and it doesn't take two to tango as some have asserted. When faced with an opponent who insists on repeated head-on passes a choice to turn away does nothing to stop the hail of lead in your direction - it just stops you returning fire. The only positive is your angular velocity changes making you a little harder to hit. One possible tactic is to sideslip but it has its own issues.

 

In the situation with the Camel above it was the Camel alone who forced a collision. The DR was defensive in a turn having his options controlled by the plane on his tail. In my experience any attempt to avoid a collision in this situation only results in the noob altering direction to reestablish a collision course.

 

I have no doubt at all that perma-death would radically transform behaviour in this regard but at the expense of a very-soon-empty server. Years ago I used to play Americas Army where dead was dead for the rest of the game. As a result there was no run-n-gun crap and players behaved far more realistically wrt risky actions. Games were short though - 10-30 minutes. Server were full despite the rules. I guess it just attracted a different crowd to CoD and the others.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

I interviewed enough Mustang pilots for a book project to know head-on passes were quite common.

I suspect they were talking about firing at the merge - which was common.

Firing at the merge is just common sense when you have 6 50 cals. You are passing him anyway and you may force a defensive manoeuvre which immediately puts you at an advantage. Being shot at also puts you in a defensive mindset.

 

This is not the same as constant repeated head-on passes because you don't know any different and don't mind being killed.

[BlitzPig_EL]

While I never initiate a head on, I will never be the first to break off from one.

 

This happened rather frequently in original IL2. 

 

Enemy pilot initiates a head on with me.  I simply refuse to break off first and give him the easy kill, so we collide, both die, and then the chat bar lights up with, of course you guessed it...

 

Stupid n00b!!!! Why didn't you break off?????!!!!!!!   To which I generally asked, Why didn't you?     Then it devolves into:  "I'm an experten and you should have broken off..."

 

 

At which point I just hit refly and move along.

Edited March 30, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[HagarTheHorrible]

If VR takes off it will be interesting to see if head on collisions, or collisions full stop, are just as common.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It will take years before VR becomes widespread, simply because of costs, and it won't work for me anyway because if an eye problem I have.

 

Meh.

 

I'll always be gazing at a desktop screen.

[Brano]

I'm hopefull that VR, in the years to come, may help mitigate against this and accidental collisions will become far less frequent.

Something like a physical punch in the face by whatever VR device/environment ? I'm in

[HagarTheHorrible]

Something like a physical punch in the face by whatever VR device/environment ? I'm in

 

 

Not necessary at all.

 

In fact something already exists, it just needs to be included with a joystick.  Electric shock, party games already exist that use this as a jeopardy, but hey each to their own, if you want punched in the face then don't let me stand in your way.  A hole new meaning to VR face.

Edited March 30, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible

[Zettman]

 Electric shock. A hole new meaning to VR face.

 

Sounds like another type of these special people with the canister of petrol and lighter right next to them, seeking for the most hardcore simexperince in case of their plane catching fire.