191 réponses à ce sujet

[JediHarbinger]

I should go

[Original Twigman]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

we wiped on extraction vs. reapers

indeed, but that was after i bruised your anus

wut?

lol, biggs you kreep me out

[masleslie]

Maybe you are right if you have it at a high enough level, I couldn't say since mine is only at level 4 and still pretty weak. More importantly the reload thing drives me nuts.

Really though I can't shake the feeling you are comparing a pick up truck with a sports car. If you want to say how great the CSMG is you have to compare is with other weapons of the same type.

Hurricane. End of conversation, better luck next time.

[MasterPeras]

Of course it is everyone knows this...it is known

[Rutg3r]

at lvl 3 it burns through my ammo packs. The magazine is so small...

[MasterPeras]

CA put some warp rounds on and everything primed will melt in seconds+easy head shots

[NuclearTech76]

Original Stikman wrote...

Harrier>csmg

Yet what did I hear all match long? Out of ammo, out of ammo, out of ammo.

Still it was fun. I think we had a shot at a duo record on Hydra if we had used rockets.

[lightswitch]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

First two go to Stik. I really thought I had him in the first match, The second was just bad all the way around.

I really think it's because the Harrier is better than the CSMG...

[lightswitch]

what you should do now is try it again, but switch weapons.

[NuclearTech76]

lightswitch wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

First two go to Stik. I really thought I had him in the first match, The second was just bad all the way around.

I really think it's because the Harrier is better than the CSMG...

Never....................I actually had a 3k lead going into wave nine and thought I had it in the bag. I told him him midways into the match that the game was turning into who got to the spawn first.

The Collectors match on Reactor was just chitty on my part. He ended up having to solo a wave.

Reapers was a terrible match on both our parts. Each had to solo a wave and we got too cocky and wiped since it was lol Ripperz.

[lightswitch]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

First two go to Stik. I really thought I had him in the first match, The second was just bad all the way around.

I really think it's because the Harrier is better than the CSMG...

Never....................I actually had a 3k lead going into wave nine and thought I had it in the bag. I told him him midways into the match that the game was turning into who got to the spawn first.

The Collectors match on Reactor was just chitty on my part. He ended up having to solo a wave.

Reapers was a terrible match on both our parts. Each had to solo a wave and we got too cocky and wiped since it was lol Ripperz.

There's a lot of points on the line in waves 9 10 and 11. I still think the difference could have been the weapons.

[NuclearTech76]

lightswitch wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

First two go to Stik. I really thought I had him in the first match, The second was just bad all the way around.

I really think it's because the Harrier is better than the CSMG...

Never....................I actually had a 3k lead going into wave nine and thought I had it in the bag. I told him him midways into the match that the game was turning into who got to the spawn first.

The Collectors match on Reactor was just chitty on my part. He ended up having to solo a wave.

Reapers was a terrible match on both our parts. Each had to solo a wave and we got too cocky and wiped since it was lol Ripperz.

There's a lot of points on the line in waves 9 10 and 11. I still think the difference could have been the weapons.

Could be. Probably would've been missiling with most PUGs though those waves.

[Cyonan]

lightswitch wrote...

There's a lot of points on the line in waves 9 10 and 11. I still think the difference could have been the weapons.

Probably not, since these challenges don't actually prove anything =P

[Original Twigman]

lightswitch wrote...

what you should do now is try it again, but switch weapons.

thats a really good idea.

I didn't even check the score until we extracted the first game, so i don't know about the whole "lead on wave 9 then i jumped over" stuff. All i know is end game = the true game master, aka stikman

I knew i had it the second vs. collectors though

Third game i got grabbed... wave... 7? Nuclear got a 10k jump on me. Wave 8 i evened it up and even passed him a bit

wave 9 he got grabbed so i solo'd it. Wave 10 the spread was pretty far, and wave 11 we wiped with 1 minute to go

The wipe was actually pretty funny. Both of us were in the same spot on ghost, the banshees were only a few meters away so both of us decided to run. We both went throug a door at the same time only to see two brutes blocking the entire path. we both said something to the effect of "Oh shi---"  *ksh* "teammate offline!"

[NuclearTech76]

Ghostknife72 wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

what you should do now is try it again, but switch weapons.

thats a really good idea.

I didn't even check the score until we extracted the first game, so i don't know about the whole "lead on wave 9 then i jumped over" stuff. All i know is end game = the true game master, aka stikman

I knew i had it the second vs. collectors though

Third game i got grabbed... wave... 7? Nuclear got a 10k jump on me. Wave 8 i evened it up and even passed him a bit

wave 9 he got grabbed so i solo'd it. Wave 10 the spread was pretty far, and wave 11 we wiped with 1 minute to go

The wipe was actually pretty funny. Both of us were in the same spot on ghost, the banshees were only a few meters away so both of us decided to run. We both went throug a door at the same time only to see two brutes blocking the entire path. we both said something to the effect of "Oh shi---"  *ksh* "teammate offline!"

Yea, a true A/B  then B/A comparison would net some interesting data.  Provided all other aspects are kept the same.

IDK we were killing everything pretty fast with Arc barrage and incinerate. The first game it was more about who got to the enemies first. I was completely ignoring the primes till nine because the points are in the smaller enemies and you can score **** quicker. I could keep my scrubby ass off the ground versus Collectors.

[Original Twigman]

Cyonan wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

There's a lot of points on the line in waves 9 10 and 11. I still think the difference could have been the weapons.

Probably not, since these challenges don't actually prove anything =P

It could prove that Player A's Ability to survive/kill> Player B's

It could prove Player B's host> Player A's

It could prove Player A's PvE strategy > Player B's

It could prove Player B's loadout > Player A's

plenty of things these challenges could prove.

Whats the point of only using statistical information, numbers generated, etc. if you also can't provide some solid anecdotal evidence of its utility?

Its well-known the harrier has one of the best DPS numbers in the game. Its also well-known that its stability and ease of use makes it outstanding. The collector SMG also has well-known features. So why not take that knowledge and actually test it out to further support the numbers behind it?

A crappy player can easily generate numbers to back up their claims, but can't prove the anecdotal evidence to support it. So does that mean we should dismiss numbers because Player A can outscore him using numbers that clearly don't stack up? of course not. Neither should we dismiss something as fun and challenging as two, very capable players, providing further evidence of specific loadouts with the same class

[Cyonan]

Original Stikman wrote...

It could prove that Player A's Ability to survive/kill> Player B's

It could prove Player B's host> Player A's

It could prove Player A's PvE strategy > Player B's

It could prove Player B's loadout > Player A's

plenty of things these challenges could prove.

Whats the point of only using statistical information, numbers generated, etc. if you also can't provide some solid anecdotal evidence of its utility?

Its well-known the harrier has one of the best DPS numbers in the game. Its also well-known that its stability and ease of use makes it outstanding. The collector SMG also has well-known features. So why not take that knowledge and actually test it out to further support the numbers behind it?

A crappy player can easily generate numbers to back up their claims, but can't prove the anecdotal evidence to support it. So does that mean we should dismiss numbers because Player A can outscore him using numbers that clearly don't stack up? of course not. Neither should we dismiss something as fun and challenging as two, very capable players, providing further evidence of specific loadouts with the same class

It could prove a lot of things in theory, but in reality it doesn't actually prove anything because there are too many variables with no real way to separating all of them enough to tell them apart.

I'm not saying we should dismiss evidence. I'm saying this isn't evidence of how good the Harrier or CSMG is because there are too many influencing factors, especially if the measurement is score which is already questionable on its own.

[Original Twigman]

Cyonan wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

It could prove that Player A's Ability to survive/kill> Player B's

It could prove Player B's host> Player A's

It could prove Player A's PvE strategy > Player B's

It could prove Player B's loadout > Player A's

plenty of things these challenges could prove.

Whats the point of only using statistical information, numbers generated, etc. if you also can't provide some solid anecdotal evidence of its utility?

Its well-known the harrier has one of the best DPS numbers in the game. Its also well-known that its stability and ease of use makes it outstanding. The collector SMG also has well-known features. So why not take that knowledge and actually test it out to further support the numbers behind it?

A crappy player can easily generate numbers to back up their claims, but can't prove the anecdotal evidence to support it. So does that mean we should dismiss numbers because Player A can outscore him using numbers that clearly don't stack up? of course not. Neither should we dismiss something as fun and challenging as two, very capable players, providing further evidence of specific loadouts with the same class

It could prove a lot of things in theory, but in reality it doesn't actually prove anything because there are too many variables with no real way to separating all of them enough to tell them apart.

I'm not saying we should dismiss evidence. I'm saying this isn't evidence of how good the Harrier or CSMG is because there are too many influencing factors, especially if the measurement is score which is already questionable on its own.

I would think it is solid evidence based on a few factors:

The question behind the theory, and the capability of the players to answer the question

ex. This is a PvE game. So, naturally, we have questions. We could ask: "What is the most effective way to beat gold?" and the answers become largely varied, as Player A might have a different way to determine effectiveness, as does Player B.

But then, you could instead ask "what is the fastest way to beat gold?" Then, you have a goal in mind: Effectiveness through time. This will cut out playstyle as a factor, and then involve who's strategy is better than who's.

If we are to look at the game nucleartech and I played, the question could be asked:

"which set up for the QME is most effective at generating the most points at the same time, on gold?"

Both players are limited in the environment they can control, which leaves the variable of spawns largely out of both players control, thus experiencing the full stress of PvE (a non-controlled environemnt where players are left to their own tools/devices).

If the question above is taken into consideration, i think you would be hard pressed proving that the Locust, Venom, krysea, executioner, falcon, no arc grenades, no incinerate, no passives, etc, would be a more effective QME PvE strategy than the ones Nucleartech and I have tested, on gold.

all this makes me loop around to one point that I must bring up: If nuclear brought a Acolyte to help with shields (which some players have argued with me is the most effective method) i think he would have been outscored by a larger margin as it would have just slowed him down (as it would me if i had used it).

Tl;dr version: If you take the time to define "most effective" into a more precise criteria, it becomes evident that there are several ways you generate "proofs" with in-game challenges/duos

[Sulaco_7]

Original Stikman wrote...

Harrier>csmg

but seems very close.. csmg is just a little bit worse than the harrier, if going by the scores.

[NuclearTech76]

Sulaco_7 wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Harrier>csmg

but seems very close.. csmg is just a little bit worse than the harrier, if going by the scores.

Platinum would probably be a different story I think. I could tell the difference when we focused on a pair of Primes. Ammo may have become more a concern if you got something stupid like Condor or Dagger Hazard.

[Cyonan]

Original Stikman wrote...
I would think it is solid evidence based on a few factors:

The question behind the theory, and the capability of the players to answer the question

ex. This is a PvE game. So, naturally, we have questions. We could ask: "What is the most effective way to beat gold?" and the answers become largely varied, as Player A might have a different way to determine effectiveness, as does Player B.

But then, you could instead ask "what is the fastest way to beat gold?" Then, you have a goal in mind: Effectiveness through time. This will cut out playstyle as a factor, and then involve who's strategy is better than who's.

If we are to look at the game nucleartech and I played, the question could be asked:

"which set up for the QME is most effective at generating the most points at the same time, on gold?"

Both players are limited in the environment they can control, which leaves the variable of spawns largely out of both players control, thus experiencing the full stress of PvE (a non-controlled environemnt where players are left to their own tools/devices).

If the question above is taken into consideration, i think you would be hard pressed proving that the Locust, Venom, krysea, executioner, falcon, no arc grenades, no incinerate, no passives, etc, would be a more effective QME PvE strategy than the ones Nucleartech and I have tested, on gold.

all this makes me loop around to one point that I must bring up: If nuclear brought a Acolyte to help with shields (which some players have argued with me is the most effective method) i think he would have been outscored by a larger margin as it would have just slowed him down (as it would me if i had used it).

Tl;dr version: If you take the time to define "most effective" into a more precise criteria, it becomes evident that there are several ways you generate "proofs" with in-game challenges/duos

There are still too many factors involving personal skill and playstyle. Remember that you're trying to figure out if the CSMG or the Harrier is better.

Once you answer enough of the questions to remove as much influcing factors as possible maybe you can "prove" something, but it's going to be so incredibly specific that it's going to have been useless to prove it.

By asking "which set up for the QME is most effective at generating the most points at the same time, on gold?" you've already changed the parameters. You're no longer trying to debate if the CSMG or the Harrier is superior.

You're trying to debate which one can generate more points on the QME while being wielded by either Original Stikman or Nucleartech.

Modifié par Cyonan, 07 mai 2013 - 07:27 .