Who's to say players ain't looking at their gear and seeing what synergizes well, trial and error is part of the fun.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
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![]()
Unwavering is a good talent, but does not work for me with my play styleOriginally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Err...so you agree with me on that then?Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
Me too. That's why I provide the mathematical model; so you can do exactly that.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.
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.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.
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.Maybe just step outside of the shooting range and enjoy the game....who knows, you might have fun too![]()
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.Originally Posted by Imagine_Brata Go to original post
base damage * (total weapon damage + weapon damage) * (Crit + HS) * amp1 * amp2 *DtoH *DtoA *DtOoC = per bullet damage.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
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.
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.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
The context of what you quoted seemed pretty clear to me considering the post I replied to.
That's not quite correct: weapon damage is added to crit and HS, not to TWD.Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
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.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'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.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.
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.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.
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.The difference comes when I transfer that build to a different player....
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.
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.From that I say that it does not follow that a build describes performance.
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.Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post