🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #91
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    To be honest guys....I kind of tuned out of this discussion since it seems to have turned into a matter of pride/**** size comparing.

    I think the only thing we're all going to agree on is that the difference is small enough that as long as you're using a competently optimized build for DPS that suits your playstyle(max rolls, all red, good brand selection, etc), the actual performance of the player will be the determining factor.....regardless if the math says Fox/Contractors should provide more on-paper DPS.

    I would recommend everyone take a step back and give the people in the discussion the benefit of courtesy, and try to make things a bit more friendly instead of impinging each other's skill, math, or methods before posting again.
    Share this post

  2. #92
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    ...

    You're simply assuming that others are taking your highly naive approach to analyzing builds "on paper." We're not.
    Actually I first start on paper, then move to the range, then onto a control point, then into the DZ to clear a heroic, then into a mission and then into a stronghold. After all of that I think about the builds performance across that spectrum of gameplay. I don't think that's naive at all but then again I don't think there's a whole lot of this 'we' you're referencing either when you're discusssing your opinions about this.

    With regard to that other player's build it is in fact fine on paper but it was how they played the build that rendered certain choices within it null and void. If they play the build differently it will work, but not how they are playing it currently. Sawyer's Knees requires the player to be static to gain the damage buff but their playstyle was the opposite of that ergo the build is ok but the execution of it is not.
    Share this post

  3. #93
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    I think the only thing we're all going to agree on is that the difference is small enough that as long as you're using a competently optimized build for DPS that suits your playstyle(max rolls, all red, good brand selection, etc), the actual performance of the player will be the determining factor.....regardless if the math says Fox/Contractors should provide more on-paper DPS..
    Pretty much sums it up.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #94
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
    The key for me though, and how I ultimately judge my builds, is how it shores up the most glaring issue....

    In my case, I'm normally looking to address Chunga sponge. And Chunga are always Out of Cover, so I favor Damage to Targets Out of Cover [and Damage to Health - bonus it works equally as well on rDogs].
    Yes, I agree that this is correct as a general approach (though though see below re Chungas).

    To re-iterate my explanation for others, this is precisely why I have fraction of OOC as a variable in the formulae: if you value trading damage to OOC enemies for damage to enemies in cover, you want to run the formulae at least twice, once for pure OOC damage to determine how to get the highest possible damage against those, and once or more again for a ratio to determine your overall long-term damage output. This gives data necessary to personal decisions about how one likes the balance between the two.

    Originally Posted by As1r0nimo Go to original post
    Tanks doesn't count as Out of Cover. They are exist and that's it. Doggos and mini tanks are the same.
    That's interesting! I'd heard the opposite elsewhere in this forum: that tanks and dogs and the like were always OOC. But that wasn't accompanied by any claim of testing, and might well have been assuming what seemed obvious. I guess I need to run up a couple of test builds at some point to confirm that you're correct here. Or maybe you have a link to a video or other analysis?

    ────────────────────────────────────────

    Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
    That extra damage was easily offset by weapon handling rolls elsewhere on the build...
    This is the nub of your misunderstanding. The extra damage from Fox's Prayer is not changed by anything elsewhere (i.e., not on the kneepads) because you can still have that stuff elsewhere while having Fox's Prayer at the same time. You're changing an extra orthogonal variable that need not be changed and then claiming that this somehow affects whether or not one uses Fox's Prayer. It does not.

    Take whatever build you feel is best, change only the kneepads to Fox's Prayer, and then run the calculations to see under what circumstances it's better and worse. You'll find that in a high-red build it's better down to a pretty low fraction of enemies out of cover. (Or you probably won't, because you won't run the numbers, but that's not a problem with my reasoning.)

    ────────────────────────────────────────

    And just to address a few other logical fallacies that seem unrelated to Fox's Prayer, or doing damage analysis period:

    Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
    Well i certainly don't need to work out how obnoxious you are, It's time to get off your high horse don't you think.
    Well, I consider you to be the one on the high horse here, since you continue making unsupported general claims about how useless the analysis others here are doing is. Ad hominem arguments like this don't help.


    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    You quoted the second half of this statement: "I think it would be an error to claim that missing a shot undermined the argument for CHC/CHD, but it would also be an error to insert a perfect player performing perfectly into a mission that ran perfectly etc.".
    Right. My claim is that the latter is an argument that nobody but you has brought up. Therefore straw man. If you're arguing that someone else is making the later argument, quote it. If not, simply don't bring it up and you won't be implying that I or anybody else is saying that.

    You quoted the bold sections of that statement which is clearly and not related to a statement about ditching Fox's knees.
    The topic of the thread is about using Fox's Knees or not. If you're going to discuss unrelated things, do so in a different thread and then you won't have people assuming that you're talking about this thread's topic.

    What I said is clear for anyone to read....
    So I think. Yet you seem to disagree with my reading of what you wrote, so it's appears not to be clear to one of us; the logical conclusion then is that it's not "clear for anyone to read." (You may think that it should be clear, but that again is a value judgement on your part, not a fact.)

    Again, what I stated was that while they can and often will produce a larger number at somepoint that alone is not sufficient cause for me to use them.
    Sure. Personal value judgements like that are fair, as I've stated time and time again. But also irrelevant to whether Fox's Prayer actually does more damage. It can be (and is) true both that it does, and that you don't value that it produces more damage.

    Repeating over and over again your value judgement in this thread is just noise. We're all aware of it now, so let's go back to how to calculate under what circumstances Fox's Knees does and does not produce more damage.

    I don't replace [Fox's Prayer] with anything as I often simply don't select them to start with....
    Such cavilling generates only heat, not light. The thread topic is Fox's Prayer vs. anything else in the kneepads slot. So read my "replaced" as, "there exists a build with Fox's Prayer in that slot, and another build with that replaced by something else; these are the two builds we are comparing."
    Share this post

  5. #95
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    With regard to that other player's build it is in fact fine on paper....
    No. You merely thought it was fine on paper. It was clear to me that it was not fine even on paper. The build turned out to be not fine in the end. Thus, your "on paper" analysis was wrong, and mine was correct.

    You are constantly confusing your own opinions with facts, and that is the source of most of your trouble.
    Share this post

  6. #96
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post

    This is the nub of your misunderstanding. The extra damage from Fox's Prayer is not changed by anything elsewhere (i.e., not on the kneepads) because you can still have that stuff elsewhere while having Fox's Prayer at the same time. You're changing an extra orthogonal variable that need not be changed and then claiming that this somehow affects whether or not one uses Fox's Prayer. It does not.
    You've quoted the wrong person as I said what you've responded to above.

    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Take whatever build you feel is best, change only the kneepads to Fox's Prayer, and then run the calculations to see under what circumstances it's better and worse. You'll find that in a high-red build it's better down to a pretty low fraction of enemies out of cover. (Or you probably won't, because you won't run the numbers, but that's not a problem with my reasoning.)
    Done, as I have stated already and as others have also stated and I'm not persuaded either by the numbers on the range, in mission or your reasoning. I'm more in-line with the reasoning in the video I linked you to but you've not replied to that so I have no idea about your thoughts on that.

    I ran the numbers for each of those builds so the decision I made is based of of testing both in the range and in mission for the builds that I actually have, and for the builds that I actually have those knees do not afford a better choice.

    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Right. My claim is that the latter is an argument that nobody but you has brought up. Therefore straw man. If you're arguing that someone else is making the later argument, quote it. If not, simply don't bring it up and you won't be implying that I or anybody else is saying that.
    As I've already shown to you the latter is not an argument at all but a retort to another comment. The use of the same form of argument but from the other extreme. Really not complicated, I'm struggling to understand how you keep misrepresenting that other than by a conscious act to do so. That is also not how a straw man argument is constructed; here's a wiki description of the straw man logical/rhetorical fallacy:

    A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

    No where have I replaced the subject with a false one and then attempted to refute that... no where... at all. I replied with the same argument from the other extreme, again, not complicated. Now before you wade in and so narrowly define what you do find acceptable to comment on, I'll again state that this was in reply to another commentator's statement and not me making an argument for or against anything at all but merely replying to another's statement..

    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    So I think. Yet you seem to disagree with my reading of what you wrote, so it's appears not to be clear to one of us; the logical conclusion then is that it's not "clear for anyone to read." (You may think that it should be clear, but that again is a value judgement on your part, not a fact.)
    Seriously! So because you are beligerant no one can understand what I've written. Presumably you think all cats are black too.

    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Such cavilling generates only heat, not light. The thread topic is Fox's Prayer vs. anything else in the kneepads slot. So read my "replaced" as, "there exists a build with Fox's Prayer in that slot, and another build with that replaced by something else; these are the two builds we are comparing."
    It's not clear to you because you're entrenched in your viewpoint and are excluding all other positions. You are refusing point blank to look at this in any other way than the one you define, and then redefine when it's falted. In effect you've created a discussion along the lines of: "2 + 2 = 4 now come at me bro!". Intellectually dishonest and quite childish if I'm frank about that.
    Share this post

  7. #97
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    Done, as I have stated already....
    You keep stating that, and you keep refusing to show your work.

    This is the basic problem with your style of argument. You assert something, but don't show us how you reached that conclusion. It's impossible for us to say if you're correct, or you reached that conclusion in an invalid way, or you just made up the result without any process at all ("I want it to be true, so I'll say it's true").

    I ran the numbers for each of those builds....
    Great! So show us how you ran them.

    As I've already shown to you the latter is not an argument at all but a retort to another comment.
    Assertions that "X is false" are an argument. Trying to hide behind "I'm not really arguing this" while you are is arguing in bad faith.

    Also, saying "X is false" implies that you think that someone here said "X is true." If you believe that nobody said that, simply don't bring it up and you'll avoid implying that, and avoid a lot of pointless argument. Right now, you're giving me the impression that you want pointless argument on things that you appear also to be claiming that nobody disagrees with. Again, arguing in bad faith.

    "A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
    Yes, that appears to me exactly what you're doing when you can't quote someone making the argument you're stating your disagreement with.

    No where have I replaced the subject with a false one and then attempted to refute that... no where... at all.
    Let me show you one of the several where I believe you did just that:

    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    ...it would also be an error to insert a perfect player performing perfectly into a mission that ran perfectly etc.
    If you're saying that this is not a straw man argument because someone really did say it's not an error to do this, you can easily prove that by quoting them. Please do so.
    Share this post

  8. #98
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post

    Stuff

    I have a much better solution for you: Carry on using Fox's the way you are. As to the remainder of the discussion I had thought to put together another video helping you explore this stuff. To be honest though, you were kind of a **** about the last one and as you haven't replied to the video I have posted in here which does show that Fox's comes out worse in certain builds I think I'd be wasting a lot of time on you.

    Maybe if I'm doing something related and I have that recorded I'll come back and post it but I ain't going out of my way for you.

    *Edit... made an hour or so later....

    So I had a change of heart because I don't like arguing for the sake of it. I find it a little depressing to be honest and I'd like to be viewed in good faith. So I did the vid for ya!



    So there's that and I'll wait your reply to it but I can't say I'm waiting in excitement as this has all gone a little sour for me.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #99
    Ping*
    Share this post

  10. #100
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Well, I consider you to be the one on the high horse here, since you continue making unsupported general claims about how useless the analysis others here are doing is. Ad hominem arguments like this don't help.
    Where did i say it's useless? i said "Having Fox's prayer and not having them the dps is miniscule, hardly worth doing calculations for" and what i mean by that is wether you use them or not it's not going to effect the game whatsoever.

    You clearly have a superiority complex and get offensive when people on this forum don't share your same thoughts.
    Share this post