- CravenC21h30o2
- |
- Exalted Member
If you're interested in recruiting (or being recruited), for matchmaking or gamebattles, please join my group. If you do decide to join please tell all your friends. Thanks in advance.
Greatest game ever.
Ranked Perfection
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
~B.B.
Look it's real simple. Because you don't seem to get this at all. In a VIDEO GAME environement there is no such thing as imperfect aim when the character is standing still. How the hell can you conclude that two characters standing still in Dan's video, one shooting at the other, will have imperfect aim? That makes absolutely no sense. If my reticule is aimed at my opponents head/body or w/e, and I'm using the weapon inside it's justifiable boundaries of effectiveness. This weapon should perform to it's full potential. WHAT THIS MEANS, for your increasingly weak arguments sake, is that at 18 WU's, or medium range whichever you like, a 4sk should be the expected outcome of an encounter with an opponent standing still. DO YOU GET IT YET? I'm seriously getting tired of trying to lead the blind. I'm not taking it out of context, I could post the whole damn weekly update here and it will still say the words "should yield a kill" this is the only part you have to focus on, because in a video game environment there is no difference between "perfect aim" and the spot where my reticule is aimed. As long as I'm aimed at that spot there should be no expected deviation. This is exactly why we're debating! Because at this point in time there IS a deviation! There is no such thing as proper aim. There is no way to account for the completely random bullet spread. I'd also like to know when you tested this theory that you can consistently 4shot accross the circle of guardian, and the exact measurement of the diameter of the circle, and the exact distance apart you were from the control in this experiment you did. This would be why dan made the video he did. To show that in a controlled environment, where there is no movement, and the reticule is properly aimed at the opponent in the way suggested by even bungie themselves, the gun does not perform to specs. Here's a previous post just to HIGHLIGHT how amazingly wrong you are...
Posted by: CravenC21h30o2
Posted by: RagingWithFear
The BR is intended to be accurate; however it is not intended to be completely accurate. It is intended to work at a "medium" distance and kill in either 4 or 5 bursts. If you are closer than medium distance it can kill consistently with 4 bursts if all are aimed correctly.
Apparently that is not the case, look at video tests, matchmaking and custom games, the BR tends not to kill consistently if aimed correctly. The real question I ask though is what is "Aiming Correctly"?
Technically you can't aim "correctly" because the BR is random and don't even get started, there is so much proof that the BR is random and the equations are even done out for the randomness of the BR.
But, HOW CAN YOU AIM A RANDOM WEAPON CORRECTLY?
This is the greatest way to sum up the anti-br side of this debate... "HOW CAN YOU AIM A RANDOM WEAPON CORRECTLY?"
I'll give you a hint on where your mistake is, confidence in bungie. NEWSFLASH EVERYBODY! Bungie makes mistakes. They've admited it before. They are not perfect. The two statements made about the BR by bungie, weekly update and the separate statement that it's working properly, directly contradict each other. I'll include the examples since you obviously can't be expected to read previous posts.
EX. 1 Weekly Update:
"For the first, and most accurate bullet coming from the Battle Rifle here’s the equation:
SIN(.15)xDistance in World Units = Error margin for a given bullet at a specific range.
In the case of the Battle Rifle on Guardian, the approximate distance from Snipe 2 to Gold 2 is roughly 18 world units. Plugging those numbers into the equation yields a value of .047 world units in the absolute worst case scenario for that bullet. Since one world unit is equal to 10 feet, the variation on that bullet is 0.047 world units, or roughly half of a foot. Considering that the Spartan model is 0.75 world units (the Chief is 7 and a half feet tall) you can get a pretty good idea of what kind of variation will come from that bullet, that works out to roughly a half a foot of variation at that distance. The Chief’s helmet is approximately 0.094 world units wide, so if the shields pop, that bullet – aimed and fired accurately – under reasonable network conditions yields a kill."
Oh and nowhere in there did I read anything about "perfect aim". It says accurate, which since they designed the game to function this way, I would assume this means with the reticule aimed at the head.
EX. 2 Lukems own words:
Changing the BR's fraction of a degree spread -- just how small it is, I'll throw in the Update this week under the Waahmbulance of the week -- would as folks have pointed out here, fundamentally change the rifle's effective range. Changing the effective range on the Battle Rifle would upset the intended sandbox balance.
In the vast majority of cases -- I've seen the Elite standing still on Ghost Town video where it takes a ton of hits to kill it in SWAT -- the Battle Rifle is performing "by Design," which sounds like an uncomfortable cop out, but the Battle Rifle and its fraction of a degree spread (margin of error) is designed to have the first three bursts aimed at mass and the specific bullet assignment in the three-bullet burst has the first bullet, i.e. the tenth round in a FSK - and the killing blow - be the most accurate bullet. As accurate by the numbers as the H1 pistol and the H2 BR.
Players in general are unknowingly having problems with the Battle Rifle not because of spread, but because of bullet speed - the bullet velocity is lower (i.e., not a hitscan weapon) and also now requires players to take into account their own movement (in acquiring the target, player velocity does NOT change bullet velocity), their target's movement and that target's distance from them -- it's all a factor with Halo 3's battle rifle. The degree of error on the first bullet from the three round burst is so miniscule that in LAN conditions if a player is "one shot" or deshielded, even someone as bad as I am should be able to finish with the fourth shot.
RE: The original post that started this whole series of discussions and spawned the 40-odd some page thread that I nuked this morning with a misclick, presumed to be a professional take on the Battle Rifle and then took a quote from Tyson woefully out of context and couched an argument on it? That erroneous premise doesn't really augment the credibility of any claims about whether or not the BR is performing how consumers want it to.
Ok I will dumb it down for you, he basicly says here that 1 bullet is as accurate as the halo CE pistol and the other 2 are random.
So four shot kills are random.
Credit to the OP of this post: Endorsed
Hopefully you will understand that these things contradict themselves, contradict the performance of the BR, and contradict just about everything you're continuously saying. If it's not "define WU's for me" or "define medium range for me" then it's "perfect aim". Seriously you've brought up point after point picking tiny little things to complain about. The reality of the situation is this....
The BR has a random bullet spread. This point is not debateable at all. It is fact.
The random bullet spread is causing luck to be a factor where it should not be, which is in a competitve environment. No matter what kind of competition it is. Weather or not you think luck and competition go together is actually up to you, but it's pretty obvious by the definition of competition, and the way the game was meant to be played that we can assume that luck should not be a factor.