- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
I hate a lot of things but, art isn't one.
Posted by: Drowsy Demon
Alright you got a point here but it's mainly an issue of clarification. What I wanted to say was that with no Bloom, everyone fires at their fastest ROF while still trying to maintain their accuracy. I didn't mean to imply that firing fast was impossible with no bloom, just that the gameplay concepts of "Spam" and "Pace" are non-existent in no-bloom gametypes. Got it memorized?
I fail to see how this would be a counter argument to the effectiveness of rapid fire since with bloom there is inconsistency and without it it becomes a hyper powerful automatic death ray. Yes with bloom, rapid fire is still possible but less effective in some scenarios. Make the same video with no bloom and you will see that anyone with decent aim will seemingly one shot their opponent every time. If you notice in your video it took more shots because bloom degrades accuracy naturally. You actually proved my point somehow?
Posted by: Drowsy Demon
Yeah no -blam!- -blam!- brah. I was being condescending since you state how something is wrong when it has yet to have been disproved, and then you attack me for using the same generalization. This has nothing to do with popularity. Like so many others have had the pleasure of banging into my head, the competitive crowd is a MINORITY. However, when MLG (the actual organization) achieves consensus, it's right from a competitive perspective, because there are no other massive organizations designated as arbiters of competitive play for Halo.
Because really, who argues for Bloom and is part of said competitive crowd? Uhh...let me think....no one.
So, you are saying that since the science community was the only organization to clarify facts about the world and ultimately the universe, no one could possible disagree with them without being a complete idiot? So the world is in fact flat because Eratosthenes never accomplished the task of measuring the circumference of the earth?
A fact- a Greek mathmetician and geographer named Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth way back in the 3rd century B.C.E. Well see his idea was completely correct and wasn't widely accepted until after his death. Point of this logic? I have my own theory on bloom that I have proven on this forum but explaining it over and over is like beating a dead horse. I am acquiring arthritis just trying to enlighten the people about how backwards and flawed their logic is... In fact, most of the time my responses have been "youre bad". No actual topical rebuttle. Just a simple flame phrase.