🛈 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. #231
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    That's one of the best parts, sure. But many people find it more fun to look at and think about the gear, how it can be combined and what the interactions woudl be, rather than just slapping random items into the slots and playing a bit. That's exactly what I'm doing here.
    Who's to say players ain't looking at their gear and seeing what synergizes well, trial and error is part of the fun.

    I myself would much rather mess around with gear and see what works well and learn the hard way rather than someone tell me "Look, this will work much better".....that's part of the fun process.

    Out of the 2,531hrs played in TD2 i think i have spent 1hr max in total in the shooting range, i certainly did not need it to find what's best for me.

    Maybe just step outside of the shooting range and enjoy the game....who knows, you might have fun too
    Share this post

  2. #232
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Oh and look at the bright side "The Division 2 forum will go into read-only mode on June 29th"

    Share this post

  3. #233
    Imagine_Brata's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    713
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    And I've never used an SMG with a talent other than Unwavering
    Unwavering is a good talent, but does not work for me with my play style
    Share this post

  4. #234
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
    Who's to say players ain't looking at their gear and seeing what synergizes well, trial and error is part of the fun.
    Err...so you agree with me on that then?

    I myself would much rather mess around with gear and see what works well and learn the hard way rather than someone tell me "Look, this will work much better".....that's part of the fun process.
    Me too. That's why I provide the mathematical model; so you can do exactly that.

    Out of the 2,531hrs played in TD2 i think i have spent 1hr max in total in the shooting range, i certainly did not need it to find what's best for me.
    I have spent a lot more than that, but I agree it's more fun to spend time shooting. That's why I prefer to do some quick additions and multiplications rather than slow experiements in the range.

    Maybe just step outside of the shooting range and enjoy the game....who knows, you might have fun too
    Ah, there's your error. You somehow assumed that I don't do this, rather than realizing that the whole point of my method is to spend less time in the range and more time playing the game.

    Originally Posted by Imagine_Brata Go to original post
    Unwavering is a good talent, but does not work for me with my play style
    I never said it wasn't. You see how that works? I say something that technically doesn't disagree with you at all, but it still sounds to you like disagreement and you feel compelled to post a correction.
    Share this post

  5. #235
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    No, we disagree there. I say that paper performance translates exactly to in-game performance. If my calculation says that a bullet will do X damage when it hits an enemy, I'm very convinced that the game will produce exactly that result. If the paper calculation says that you will get Y damage overall if Z percent of your targets are out of cover when the bullet hits them, then the game will do exactly that.

    The problem here seems to be that you think there are things on that paper that are simply not there, such as, "when you next play mission X, what percentage of your shots will miss?" That's neither in my calculations nor yours (though in mine that can be put in as an estimate, if you like, which you can't so easily do experimentally). So I don't see how it's relevant. Neither of us predict the exact future, nor, as far as I know, are either of us claiming to do so. (I certainly am not.)

    This is another source of confusion, I think. There are no ideals here (except what you keep trying to bring to this). I just say "this happens under these conditions." You're absolutely correct that, for this information to be applicable to all players you must separate that from the player's choice about what conditions to meet and the value judgements about whether "this happens" is desirable or not. So don't assign things like "player X."

    Let's sum that up again: I am never saying things like an unqualified, "a player will do this much damage." You should assume all the reasonable and obvious qualifications such as, "the damage will be this much from this bullet only if the player hits the target with it." You'll note that the game makes the exact same assumptions on the inventory screen when it shows you things such as the damage of a weapon.
    base damage * (total weapon damage + weapon damage) * (Crit + HS) * amp1 * amp2 *DtoH *DtoA *DtOoC = per bullet damage.

    Thus far, this is the only math that you have shown being used in your system of analysis. It does not model everything to do with the damage a target might take. I can show you with a video how changing one attribute in that build -- an attribute that alters none of the modifiers above, keeping them constant -- makes the difference between one-clipping a named elite at 20 metres using headshots only and not being able to do that ever. Ergo a difference in damage output not modelled by the math in the above equation; it is certainly being modelled by the game, but not by that math above. So if the above is the math you're using to determine damage and you want to say that it fully describes damage output then I'm still saying no, and I can film the proof if you want.

    To the epistemological differences between theories that describe a thing and their proximity to the truth about that thing: The game runs code executing a series of instructions moment to moment. Assuming no coding errors it follows that the code describes the game world completely. Ergo, accepting zero error, the game world is internally consistent. If we are using the same laws to calculate our damage output as the code does then it follows from that that our equations are consistent too -- see above where this is already falling apart. So we make a build using these consistent laws and it follows that we can say with certainty that a bullet does x damage under y conditions in z build. So far I have no issues with the fundamentals of what is being claimed here.

    The difference comes when I transfer that build to a different player, even when I alter the performance of the same player. It's still true that the game is internally consistent; it's still true that the build describes per bullet damage output, but what changes is the overall damage output, the change in damage output stems from the change in player performance. From that I say that it does not follow that a build describes performance. I'd have no issue with someone telling me that a paper-build describes its potential.
    Share this post

  6. #236
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post

    Yeah, when someone says "X!" and someone else replies just "Y!", that often comes across as a disagreement. Maybe if you guys who don't disagree with the original point when you provide what can be read as an alternative, rather than a complement, you could say so, and that would help avoid coming across as if you disagree. E.g., "While X is is helpful, Y is also helpful and you should not use X as a reason not to do or take into account Y."
    I'm not going down that road. I already try a fair amount to try and sugar coat my posts without also having to throw worrying about every time someone misinterprets what I was saying.

    The context of what you quoted seemed pretty clear to me considering the post I replied to.
    Share this post

  7. #237
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    base damage * (total weapon damage + weapon damage) * (Crit + HS)...
    That's not quite correct: weapon damage is added to crit and HS, not to TWD.

    Thus far, this is the only math that you have shown being used in your system of analysis. It does not model everything to do with the damage a target might take.
    That's not everything; I also use expected value (possibly the most valuable part of the analysis) for "Crit" above and other conditional events (whether probabilistic or not), and you can of course add anything else you need for specific talents and so on. If you see me not including everything that's because dropping addends you know to be 0 and multipliers you know to be 1 produces the same result. For example, I don't include any form of amp damage, DtA or DtH in the "Fox's vs. other kneepads analysis because it's not necessary for that particular analysis. If you need to take those things into account elsewhere, you do so.

    I can show you with a video how changing one attribute in that build -- an attribute that alters none of the modifiers above, keeping them constant -- makes the difference between one-clipping a named elite at 20 metres using headshots only and not being able to do that ever.
    I'm curious to know what that is, but I'd be happier if you just told me, rather than making a video about it. At any rate, if that particular thing is relevant to the analysis, include it. I don't think it's rocket science to know to do that.

    To the epistemological differences between theories that describe a thing and their proximity to the truth about that thing: The game runs code executing a series of instructions moment to moment. Assuming no coding errors it follows that the code describes the game world completely.
    And if there are coding "errors" the code still describes the game world completely. They just make the game's model what it is; whether you consider them errors or not is your value judgement. Regardless of whether or not you consider something an "error," you can accurately model the game's model by simply including these things in your model.

    The difference comes when I transfer that build to a different player....
    There is no difference there; if you added up all the hits and misses a player made in a battle in the game and ran them through a good model of the game, you'd get the same damage result. The model can predict how much damage a hit will do; neither the model nor the game nor anything else can predict if the player will actually make a bullet hit (or even fire a bullet!), so the model, game and everything else "fail" equally there.

    I suppose it's fair to warn people that the model can't predict whether a player will be able to hit enemies, but this seems pretty obvious to me. And you should equally warn that nothing you do (or anyone else does) predicts that either. While we're at it, let's warn that none of these change the chance that you'll be hit by a meteorite when walking to the shop tomorrow; that's about equally relevant to whether you use a model or an experiment to determine whether Fox's Prayer works better in a certain class of builds than other kneepads.

    From that I say that it does not follow that a build describes performance.
    Right. For that definition of "performance," nothing describes it. But the build does perfectly predict performance given certain conditions; it is of course up to the player to determine what set of conditions he wants to use to generate his predictions.
    Share this post

  8. #238
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Pretty decently rolled contractor's gloves on sale at the theater settlement.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #239
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Pretty decently rolled contractor's gloves on sale at the theater settlement.
    Ooh they're not bad at all. Mine have the other red thingy on them so a second pair will give me flexibility when building. Interestingly enough, if you just slap Contactor's into the build I've offered up they produce a loss too, and under certain configs, especially if you throw in Coyote's mask and drop the Ceska, they become a terrible choice to make in that slot for that build.
    Share this post