I don't even have to go back to your prevous posts; you say it in the very next sentence you write:Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
In other words, useless as far as affecting (not "effecting") the game....and what i mean by that is wether you use them or not it's not going to effect the game whatsoever.
Right, of course. I'm being offensive when I point out logical contradictions in what you write, but you're not being offensive when you say things like, "You clearly have a superiority complex," and "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."You clearly have a superiority complex and get offensive when people on this forum don't share your same thoughts.
I think that this discussion with you is done.
Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post![]()
It didn't seem worthwhile, since it compares Fox's only with Sawyer's, and we've already discussed that (including the conditions where Sawyer's is better) in far more detail in this thread. The video doesn't address the more general cases we're looking at here.Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
Congratuations, you proved that when you remove 12% CHD your crits do slightly less damage. You entirely ignored your overall damage output, though. (Surely you realize from looking at your own video that not all hits are crits, right?) Perhaps if you'd looked more closely at the non-crit damage you were also doing, you'd notice something important. As for expected damage over many rounds, you can go ahead and do a statistical calcaulation based on a lot of tests, if you like, but you'll come out about the same answer as I did with the much faster and more accurate math. (Any difference will be inaccuracy in your method due to expected statistical variation.)So I did the vid for ya!
I have the strong impression that you still don't understand the calculations I'm doing, which not at all incidentally are also what the game is doing. You can show that you do understand how these calculations (both on paper and in game) work by showing us a particular high-red build and calculating the percentage of OOC hits at which your expected damage becomes higher with Fox's than with something else in that slot. (The complete template you need for this is in my second post in this thread.) Or you can just continue to be ignorant of how these calculations work (which, again I stress, is what the game is doing), in which case I see no further point in this discussion.
Is that what I proved. Oh, I thought I was just confirming the fact that those knees don't exist in 15 of my builds for a reason. I tested three different sets of knee pads in the otherwise exact same build. I can't do much about how Sawyer's rolls and I can only alter one non-weapon damage attribute to Fox's so you got what you got and what I showed you in that video is that in that build Fox's is the worst choice of the three. I looked at the total spread (twice as that's the second of two takes).Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
I've done all the leg work I'm willing to do for you. Your turn: provide one video demonstrating your perspective. I'll give you a few hours.
*edit Ijust ran the same test again firing 15 rounds whilst wearing W&H and then 15 rounds whilst wearing Fox's in that same build.
Total damage output:
W&H = 4,273,620
Fox's = 3,866,330
As to the 12% CHD that is absent from Fox's, well there's also 5% DtoA missing from them too while on the W&H's they're missing the 8% DtoOoC but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that I reroll the Fox's to put 12 CHD on them as that won't help at all by losing 6% CHC, but that's the point of the choice in this instance: what actually produces the better result, and in my build it's W&H beating Fox's so my choice is clear; unless I wish to do less damage.
Wow! This discussion went places, veering into the "dark zone" (pun intended).
As a casual yet invested player, I look at the numbers for information as guidance, not the absolute "law" in putting together a build.
I tried both contractor's and fox's with AR and SMG and either I didn't see a favorable difference or it seemed marginally less effective. So, I'm back to my Memento+Fenris+2WH+GS+Belstone build, all maxed out and all red mods. Very happy how this performs (my OCD satisfied as well).
As for the two pieces in discussion, I made a separate build with M1A CQB and Pestilence (initially Sleipnir) and it's awesome.
All problems solved.
Ha! That made me chuckle a bit, thanks.Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
I'm of the same attitude to be honest. The information is certainly valuable and often vital but not so much that I allow it to dictate what I'd wear -- which is often what happens to players when other players take this stuff way too seriously and start making entrance demands to activities along the lines of: "Must have 60 CHC/150CHD or other such constraints. It actually really annoys me when I hear one player demand that another must wear this or that or must do it this way and only this way because it's an instant fun killer to take a game and turn it into an entrance exam.Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
Glad you're rocking some builds you're happy with!
Well, you're wrong. You went wrong when you looked (around 2:20 and 3:30) at only the highest damage number produced from your best crit rather than looking at your overall damage output. That you were sometimes using Strained and sometimes not doesn't help there, either.Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
And it really doesn't help that you are making your argument in a way that's much more difficult to access than just writing things down. I had to spend a couple of minutes minutes slowing down the video and pausing just so I could see all the gear in your build. In the second message in my post, I make all the important figures available at a glance, and you've not been able to point out anything missing there.
15 rounds is a little low when dealing with crits experimentally to ensure that you're not getting an invalid result due to expected variation. You could show that this is not happening by giving us your crit rate on both of those, but you don't. (Or you could just take the easy route and calculate the expected value.) You also don't show here that you're not using Strained, which just make it more difficult to get accurate numbers in your experiment.*edit Ijust ran the same test again firing 15 rounds whilst wearing W&H and then 15 rounds whilst wearing Fox's in that same build.
Total damage output:
W&H = 4,273,620
Fox's = 3,866,330
So while the numbers you're getting don't agree with what calculations say they should be, this could easily be explained by variations in other unknowns that you've not documented.
I wouldn't seriously suggest that when you can much more simply and easily calculate what the difference would be.As to the 12% CHD that is absent from Fox's, well there's also 5% DtoA missing from them too while on the W&H's they're missing the 8% DtoOoC but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that I reroll the Fox's to put 12 CHD on them....
Oh, won't it? How much less expected damage should you get? Why is that? Can you explain the relationship between your CHC and CHD?...as that won't help at all by losing 6% CHC...
^ For f**k's sake, could you let it go, mate?!
At this point, this is not useful or interesting anymore.
It's a GAME, and there are so many possible good combinations that in most cases is down to subjective matters and preferences. Nobody (almost) will care about 2-3% less if the build is providing FUN.
I said it before and I will say it again, looks like you have way too much free time. I wish I had that time, and if I had, I would play more instead...
This thread is for those that do care, or at least find it interesting. You don't have to read every thread in the forum, and you certainly don't need to shut down threads because, though others find them interesting, you don't. How about you focus on the things you like about the game and ignore the discussion you are not interested in?Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
Well, I would hope that if you had more free time, you'd do what you like with it. Why not also let others do what they enjoy with their free time, rather than telling them they should do only things that you like?I said it before and I will say it again, looks like you have way too much free time. I wish I had that time, and if I had, I would play more instead...
(And yes, there are a number of people who enjoy taking the game apart and analyzing it at this level of detail. By "this level" I mean as in posts like this one, not claims without evidence or "I prefer this even if I could do more damage with something else" posts.)