You half quoted it yourself, the half you missed out was the perspective I was agreeing with, namely that if you can't hit a barn door don't act like it matters for this discussion, and then using the other end of that perspective to note the similar flaw of assuming perfection instead of inability.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
That is still my belief; I agree with Riflemania here when they discuss Fox's Knees. I've done the testing too and I have inserted those knees (I've done the same with the gloves too) into builds and the difference is minimal and often comes at a cost to something else I.e. I may hit higher but it takes longer to hit those numbers so lots of middling numbers just ends up better or I'll hit harder until some condition applies then I don't etc etc. So I agree that you can toss those out and get by just fine, and as they exist in only one build that I run TP/Healer/Debuffer I'm walking the walk as well. In a scenario where I know a gun will output 2% more damage but I simply don't like the feel or the concept I'll drop that 2% without a thought and that's where I often find myself with those kneepads.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
I'm not sure how you've demonstrated that data you don't have proves something you haven't tested due to its absence but I think you meant to suggest that you have asserted a series of verbal arguments that you feel would allow you to quantify these things. Fine, but the burden of proof lies with you here.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
My point here would be that I wouldn't guess at it to start with. I'd want hard data such as but not limited to: the exact number of targets out of cover, the exact number of shots landed and whether they were head or body; the exact CHD per target (not the sheet CHD but the real CHD); the exact headshot damage per target and on and on because any analysis based of of guess work isn't going to help me in the long run.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
I've stated already that I see those formula as an aid only, so I simply would not build based off of only those equations and that already puts me outside of the constraints you've given. I can tell you that in both my sniper builds, my rifle build and my AR build inserting Fox's Knees into the build does not afford an advantage great enough to pursuade me that not using them is detrimental to my performance on mission. Sure they often will produce a larger number at some point but that necessarily comes at a trade for something else, and as that often impacts some other aspect of gameplay the small (and it generally is only a small) difference in damage isn't worth the trade when I apply my value judgement to it.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
So to repeat my perspective again: Because an equation demonstrates greater x or y on paper it does not follow that paper performance directly translates into in-game performance. While they are of use, these equations are not in-game universal law.
Is this me, or that dumb argue about Fox kneves is stupid?
I mean, if you want dumb math, Contractors gloves and Fox will give you top damage. But, against specific targets. For example, to make them BOTH work, the enemy must be armored and out of cover. Most of the time you fight against red bars, so contractors does NOT work. Also, some of them could sit in Cover, so again. Finally, tanks and dogs say "fck you", so again.
Imo, but those "BiS" items are good only, and I Repeat, ONLY if they don't mess with the build you want to play. Especially with gear sets.
Large complex problemsOriginally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original posthow the hell is a pair of kneepads problem solving.
Trolling....hmm i come on here to give my thoughts and i'm trolling just because i have different views to you....did i hit a nerve or is it a case of liking the sound of your own thoughts.
Right. I quoted you saying that "You can get rid of Fox's Prayer period and it won't matter." That is clearly wrong: you disagree with it yourself both elsewhere and in the very message I'm replying to now:Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
Here you say that it does make a difference. So which is it? It does or does not make a difference?...I have inserted those knees (I've done the same with the gloves too) into builds and the difference is minimal
You then go on to say:
I claim that this is not the case. So tell us, with what did you replace Fox's Prayer in order to hit more often? Keep in mind that you must compare with a Fox's Prayer where the core or one of the non-core attributes is recalibrated to whatever you wish, since the game allows that.[The difference] often comes at a cost to something else I.e. I.e. I may hit higher but it takes longer to hit those numbers
As for this argument, I asked you here too to quote who else was making it and you have not. I claim that it's only you who came up with this, i.e., that it's another straw man. If it's not, it should be easy to prove me wrong as the evidence will be available right here in this thread....the half you missed out was the perspective I was agreeing with, namely that if you can't hit a barn door don't act like it matters for this discussion...
Regardless, it's nonsensical. Either you're talking about a player that never lands a bullet in which case you're trivially right, but talking about a player that never got past the introductory mission even to reach the White House, or you're talking about players that do land bullets at least sometimes in which case in the same circumstances they will do more damage with Fox's Prayer than without.
In other words, again you admit that they do make a difference, but you simply don't feel you personally need the extra damage. Which is fine as your own value judgement, but does not change the fact that Fox's is giving you more damage than another (high-red, mind you) configuration. Others may value this differently than you.In a scenario where I know a gun will output 2% more damage but I simply don't like the feel or the concept I'll drop that 2% without a thought and that's where I often find myself with those kneepads.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I've shown mathematically that in high-red configurations Fox's is always the best. If you think my calculations are wrong, show your own calculations that demonstrate a situation where this is not true.I'm not sure how you've demonstrated that data you don't have proves something you haven't tested due to its absence...
No, I did the math. It's all in this post....but I think you meant to suggest that you have asserted a series of verbal arguments that you feel would allow you to quantify these things.
I've given you the proof. All the numbers are there: show me where I went wrong.Fine, but the burden of proof lies with you here.
Well, that's just lack of skill on your part at doing engineering calculations, then. You may feel you want that, but it's not necessary, as I show; just put variables in for those and run the formulae with different versions of those variables and you will quickly discover the ranges within which the variables do not matter. (I.e., the ranges where, no matter the values of those variables, Fox's Prayer always does better.)My point here would be that I wouldn't guess at [the rate of hits to OOC enemies] to start with. I'd want hard data such as but not limited to: the exact number of targets out of cover, the exact number of shots landed and whether they were head or body....
If the equation takes into account all the relevant variables, yes it indeed does demonstrate that. The game itself is just running similar equations, not doing something different.Because an equation demonstrates greater x or y on paper it does not follow that paper performance directly translates into in-game performance.
Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
If and only if certain conditions are met will it impact a player's performance in game. The criticisms against the use of those kneepads stems from the many times during a mission where those conditions are not met, specifically when a target is not considered to be out of cover, when you're not using a rifle to deal damage. I've litterally just watched a build video where the player is using Sawyer's Kneepads but they have put them into a shield build that is highly mobile, consequently they are almost never gaining any benefit from Sawyer's damage buff as they are never static long enough for it to matter. So that's an example of a build where it looks good on paper but when actually played it's wasting a slot and in that build Fox's Knees would absolutely be better. There was nothing at all wrong with the math of their build but everything wrong with how they executed it.
Here's a personal anecdote about how a build fails: So I put together a status effect sniper build using trauma/creeping death/shock trap and decoy - 3pc Airaldi, 1pc Overlords(nope not those knees either!), 1pc Walker&Harris and 1pc Golan. attributes were Staus effects and a dash of CHC/CHD(40/80) and 240% HSD using Nemesis and a Classic M1a with Sadist. On paper it all looks rational, there are good synergies the talents link up with the weapons and the gear. Game on:
First map goes OK, I failed to get a good position becuase we had two shield rushers with us and they tend to push the enemy around the map increasing the amount of movement I have to make to gain LoS, but I kill a few, proc the procs and start to feel OK about the build. Next map and the mist sweeps in cutting visibility down to below 20m. I'm in combat so I can't switch build, I'm in the wrong gear for skills so even when I switched the trap to a scanner the battle was lost as the combat range was reduced by such an extent as to make being overun very easy, very fast in low visibility; certainly much faster than the 20 seconds it took for the scanner to come online. The weather sucks for the rest of the mission and I come out lowest kills and lowest damage.
Actually nothing wrong with the build though. It's not great and it probably will never lead the boards but it has a certain utility to it and I'll certainly use it again. Now the point of that little tale is to show you how a condition not linked to my build or weapons drastically affected performance. No amount of math, critical hit chance, damage, kneepads or hair pins would alter the fact that bad weather has a material impact on game play. These are the types of variable that are overlooked; overlooked because it's complicated and if you can throw a simple seemingly convincing answer at someone they take the easy out and run with it.
Regarding not using a riifle, no. Just no. It's clear if you do the math that when you're using an AR, a Fenris piece in that slot does less damage against OOC enemies than the Overlord Fox's Prayer in that slot. That's why we do the math, rather than just guessing as you do.Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
As for "when a target is not considered to be out of cover," some targets will and won't be. You can run the math and find out exactly what proportion that is. I suggest you do so and then you'll understand. So run it and tell us what that figure is. If you won't, don't claim you know something about this.
No, that build does not look good on paper, except perhaps to you. It's obvious that in highly mobile use Sawyer's Kneepads are very rarely going to proc; you should have been able to see that without having to watch a video to find that out.I've litterally just watched a build video where the player is using Sawyer's Kneepads but they have put them into a shield build that is highly mobile, consequently they are almost never gaining any benefit from Sawyer's damage buff as they are never static long enough for it to matter. So that's an example of a build where it looks good on paper....
You're simply assuming that others are taking your highly naive approach to analyzing builds "on paper." We're not.
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.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Out of Cover depends on the enemy you face and your playstyle.
I tracked it for about 10 hours last year, fighting various factions, and came out at about 70% overall [my calculator has an input, so I can adjust the percentage]. The key for me though, and how I ultimately judge my builds, is how it shores up the most glaring issue. Some factions push higher, some lower. If you're roaming the streets or play aggressive, it's higher than if you hang back playing missions.
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].
Tanks doesn't count as Out of Cover. They are exist and that's it.Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
Doggos and mini tanks are the same.
Originally Posted by CategoryTheory 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.". You quoted the bold sections of that statement which is clearly and not related to a statement about ditching Fox's knees. That does make an appearance later but not here and not as represented by you.
What I said is clear for anyone to read and I'm pretty sure they would be drawing different conclusions to you about what I'm stating. 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.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
I don't replace them with anything as I often simply don't select them to start with. That extra damage was easily offset by weapon handling rolls elsewhere on the build and those rolls operate all the time free of additional conditions that go beyond the obviousness of hitting the target. All else being equal in that build and given the choice between a set of Overlords with 8% OoC or a set of Fenris with 8% weapon handling I'm going with the Fenris everytime -- but if I can work them into the build I'd often try for Sawyer's but they have playstyle constraints. Now, I play games for fun and while I do take note of the meta analysis of the game and I do find it interesting and valuable I don't bow down to it or allow it to control my decision making when it comes to having fun. Obviously if you derive your fun from producing the largest number you can from a build then I'm happy for you but wholly disapprove of min-maxing as a concept.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
That said here's someone else's view about those pads (it's not me and I don't know this person but listen to how they talk about the actual gameplay's impact on a build):
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...tail&FORM=VIRE
Yeah gone over this above where you half quote out of context in the wrong argument. I'm not making any argument at all in the statement quoted at the beggining of this post. I'm pointing out the opposite of the same argument and, yes, pointing out the obvious truth to both.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Admit? Dude your word selection is giving a lot away about your attitude toward this discussion. I've repeatedly stated that I can create conditions where those knees produce a larger number and I have also repeatedly stated that that alone is not sufficiently persuasive to have me don those knees. Others absolutely will value them differently to me and to you; people will have preferences that go beyond math.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Other people have shown other outcomes. I'd thank you for describing my inability to carry out 6th grade math as a lack of engineering prowess but it came across as a little rude on your part so I'll just let you know I'm OK with math thanks.