Cyonan wrote...
Original Stikman wrote...
Cyonan wrote...
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.
Bolded: no we aren't. We were determining which weapon was better on the QME, that was the set-up from the beginning.
Italicized: We can easily switch the weapons, as lightswitch suggested and also provide further anecdotal evidence.
You can say the CSMG>Harrier on the QME, but if the numbers don't back it up and the in-game applicability don't back it up, then you can't draw the conclusion that CSMG>Harrier, and therefore Harrier>CSMG on the QME.
The OP does not mention the QME. He specifically says "At least on a class with built in shield stripping ability" which while the QME falls into that category, you have narrowed it beyond that. It was not about the QME since the beginning of the claim that the CSMG > Harrier.
You can switch weapons all you want, or try to change other parameters. The test is still about the CSMG and the Harrier while being wielded by very specific people. You can't possibly remove every variable that isn't the guns. Anecdotal evidence can help you persuade people, but it's not objective proof that one can score higher than the other or is better than the other.
Your last statement assumes that one weapon being better on a kit is an objective thing, as well as completely disregards the idea that they might be equal =P
Bolded: I don't think we were under any hardlined rules that confined us to the initial assertion of the broad OP. We have the ability to redefine specific challenges for more precise theories.
Itallicized: Objective proof < holistic proof in this game. You can objectively say that the Harrier/hurricane GI Out DPS any kit in the game, but put him on glacier vs. a harrier QMI and what good does the objective "proof" do?
This game has an uncontrollable environment (outside of speedrunning armored compartments), objectivity alone is not enough to sustain an argument based on in-game applicability. Objectivity + Anecdotal evidence is much greater than objectivity alone if we are looking to test effectivness in a PvE setting. In this case, the requirment of removing every variable would dilute the environment to the point where you aren't even remotely playing the same game anymore, so whats the purpose and what good would it do in providing a solid persuasive argument that A>B?
Underlined: Its a type of argument that provides a specific assumption, then seeks to prove the assumption wrong in order to prove a different conclusion. So, yes, there are assumptions, most based on numerical evidence that the two are not created equally.
.
Retour en haut
