- BerserkerBarage
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.
Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.
Posted by: CravenC21h30o2
Your confidence in the face of stacks of empirical evidence is what's amazing here. You also comment on my bias when your's is just as radical? I think you should take a good hard look in the mirror. It's ok to admit that you've lost.
I'll admit I lost when you actually have a legitimate claim. So far...nope. So far you've been weighed, you've been measured, and you've been found wanting.
Well it's not really losing though, it's gaining a greater knowledge. When I started in this debate my post was nothing more than "The BR is fine shut up you whiners". Since then, however, I've studied, and watched, and learned, and with the evidence stacked the way it is I don't see how you can continue in the way you are. Especially insulting the majority of the people who post anything contrary to your haughty beliefs.
And yet you're the one who is constantly making things personal. I point out strawmen and other illogical fallacies because that's exactly what they are. And you just made another one here in your reply, so I'll get to that in a second. I'll give you a hint, you are making the same mistake that DanBauer is.
If you read my other posts, at least (i really don't care if you reply), you'll read the part with the exerpt from the weekly update that you're using in the example of 18 WU's accross guardian. It says it SHOULD yield a kill, not that it "might" yield a kill.
Ahhh, the time has arrived. You are missing quite a big quantifier there chief. You are taking that quote out of context and without the full quote. Tsk tsk. They said that at 18 WUs (which is roughly from Sniper 2 to Gold 2) WITH PERFECT AIM, it should yield a kill. I'll say that again since you've seemed to miss it the past couple times. WITH PERFECT AIM. I don't have perfect aim. Neither does DanBauer. Neither do you. Bungie and the math nerds already have proven that it is mathematically possible to get a consistent 4-shot kill at this distance. That's empirical, not like you know what that means since you've been misusing it thus far. Until you understand that you don't have perfect aim at this distance and pretty much no one ever will, you'll never realize why you're wrong.
From my understanding of semantics this means that Bungie expects this to be within the capabilities of the BR to 4 shot consistently.
WITH PERFECT AIM...
Which only leads me to my next point. You've successfully proven that the BR is "broken" by the end of your first paragraph, and I quote, "Hell, I couldn't get a consistent 4sk from OS to Gold 2 on Guardian. Every once and a great while I would, but nothing consistent." Having taken into consideration what bungie has previously stated about this being, not only possible, but expected, this is the basic ideal of the current indictment of the BR.
Ahhh the strawman. It's sooo fun when I get to point them out. I have successfully proven that I don't have perfect aim, not that the BR is broken. Trying to suggest otherwise is illogical. And that would be bordering on a non sequitur.
Ok let me make myself a little more clear on the spread issue. The BR is a precision weapon, and with such should be precision aiming. In it's current state there is little you can do to account for the 3rd bullet randomly missing your opponent. Knowing that the Master Chief's head is round, and the reticule of the BR is also round, then we should be able to, with proper aim, hit a 4sk from medium range consistently, meaning 98% of the time. Leave that two percent to whatever other issue you want,
Yep, you can. With my "proper aim" and not "PERFECT AIM" I could get a 3x4SK from what I believe to be around 15 WUs (the size of the circle in Guardian). I still consider this mid range. I'd imagine Bungie still considers this mid range. I'd imagine most people would consider this mid range. So, guess what, at mid-range with "proper aim" you can get a consistent 4-shot kill. Thanks for proving that the BR isn't broken and is absolutely working at it's intended range.
but this kind of consistency can be replicated by human hands, and is often expected of soldiers going into the battle field. With that said the "degree of deviation" has little to do with accuracy when you're aiming at a round target.
Actually, degrees of deviation have a lot to do with firing at a round target. It means that the shots will be divergent from the center and that they will not land near each other. When dead-center will yield a kill, missing around that area has everything to do with accuracy.
If I were to perfectly aim an M-16 down range at a round target, I would expect that 98%-100% of the bullets fired will stay within the same circular area. That is "perfectly aimed", I say this because I am not trained, and therefore cannot replicate this feat myself. This is with today's technology, and with today's training, therefore it doesn't matter what kind of reality argument you want to use.
You, personally, cannot "perfectly aim" a M-16 or M-4 downrange without the aid of other things. Namely things that control for recoil, air speed, and barometric pressure. Even when controlling for those things you cannot aim a M-16 or M-4 so that all shots fired will hit the same area (ie where it's aimed) all the time. That's today's technology, and I don't write Science Fiction so I'll let Bungie do what happens 500 years from now.
I'm sure you'd love to go back and pointlessly amble on about how you're always right and everyone else is a straw headed moron, but don't bother you're really not worth the time. Just go away. You're poluting this forum with mounds of false information. The posts you decided to ignore include articles and examples of why everything you've previously said is absolutely and entirely unfounded, and in many cases absolutely wrong. Go back and learn, expand your worldly experience, come down off your high horse, and grow the hell up. BTW JIggy luv is on your side. Your the only one in this forum acting childish. Your constant provocation is not needed and is quite immature. It does elude to the idea that you are simply a forum troll. Don't lecture me ever, especially on not being childish, when you yourself can't seem to hold back the *sigh*'s and strawmen comments long enough to post a non-provocative reply. Also look up the definition of meme. Better yet since I went and did the legwork on the rest of the evidence as to why you're wrong, here's something extra...
Ugh, the word "troll" as you're using it; is a "meme". I'm the one acting childish? You can't help but try to call me a troll and at the same time make completely illogical arguments. You are the one taking things out of context by both me and Bungie and then are trying to warp them to your viewpoint. Sadly for you, that won't work with me. I'll be here to constantly point out every logical abortion you make.
I can say that we can agree to disagree all day, but most everything you've said has been answered in full by evidintial articles, or other posts explaining the mathematics and tested theorems. It's not about what I think about the BR. Personally I think it's fine, and I don't mind shooting another round to gain the kill. This, however, does not mean that there's nothing wrong with it, and it certainly doesn't mean that this should be ignored. There is plenty of evidence to back up the claim that the BR is currently not performing the way it was intended to. Why should we simply accept that that this game that we all, obviously, are so passionate about is flawed? Why in the world would we not want to point this out so that in the future the same mistakes are not rehashed?
Yep, the BR is NOT broken. You can absolutely get a 4SK at 18WUs WITH PERFECT AIM! However if you don't have perfect aim, and that would be everyone, you'll have to move closer to get a consistent 4SK. However, this is still at what I would consider mid-range, and I'd imagine many others would consider mid-range. Your so-called "empirical" evidence is based upon your faulty following of an out of context quote.
WITH PERFECT AIM...that is all.
Oh, and the reason why I didn't respond to your link about Luke's article is because it was "nuked" for me when I clicked on it. But you want me to respond to the opinions of Luke Smith with my opinions? Wow, how incredibly interesting and worthwhile that would be. If you have a problem with Luke Smith's opinions or want a discussion about them, here's a suggestion. Go talk to LUKE SMITH. I'm not going to defend or elaborate upon Luke's opinion.
~B.B.
[Edited on 07.19.2008 10:32 AM PDT]