191 réponses à ce sujet

[Saints]

DragonRacer wrote...

Saints944 wrote...

Yeesh, what did I miss?

So much epeen that it smells like a locker room up in here.

It's kinda nice. Kinky, but fun and most definitely entertaining.

 I don't know how to answer to that.

[Cyonan]

Original Stikman wrote...

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.

You're not set to any rules, but if you aren't using the ones laid out in the OP then it's not from the beginning.

My entire point here is this:

Your proof is pointless as actual evidence to everybody who isn't using a QME and named Original Stikman or NuclearTech, because the guns are going to end up performing differently on different players.

You've become so specific in your test that it barely applies to anybody anymore, and there's no way for you to remove player skill/strategy from the equation while still having a test that's capable of being run.

Any "proof" that the BSN comes up of anything being superior to anything else is poor proof because it's specific to that person's skill level and play style. I could mention a video of Jay using the Sabre on a Quarian Marksman to talk about how it's superior to any other AR, but I bet I'd get a lot of responses about how the majority of people can't aim like he does.

It's actually really hard to objectively say anything in this game. At some point Arc Grenade will theoretically out DPS the GI + Hurricane on paper if you have enough targets to hit.

[Saints]

Just to put in my lousy 2¢ I think Harrier is better then the CSMG, at least in my experience it did better for me.

Modifié par Saints944, 07 mai 2013 - 11:01 .

[Original Twigman]

Cyonan wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

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.

You're not set to any rules, but if you aren't using the ones laid out in the OP then it's not from the beginning.

My entire point here is this:

Your proof is pointless as actual evidence to everybody who isn't using a QME and named Original Stikman or NuclearTech, because the guns are going to end up performing differently on different players.

You've become so specific in your test that it barely applies to anybody anymore, and there's no way for you to remove player skill/strategy from the equation while still having a test that's capable of being run.

Any "proof" that the BSN comes up of anything being superior to anything else is poor proof because it's specific to that person's skill level and play style. I could mention a video of Jay using the Sabre on a Quarian Marksman to talk about how it's superior to any other AR, but I bet I'd get a lot of responses about how the majority of people can't aim like he does.

fair enough. Then i think you and i can both agree that any proof is just merely a proof for persuasion, not hard fact. if this is the case, i would think that we can generate a very persuasive case for the harrier, vs. say... acolyte/csmg/hurricane

[me0120]

Saints944 wrote...

Just to put in my lousy 2¢ I think Harrier is better then the CSMG, at least in my experience it did better for me.

For QME I would have to agree completely. But for classes that depend on two-power detonations the CSMG becomes more ideal.

[Shepard VI]

BSN is so slow. I remember figuring out the CSMG was godlike over two months ago.

[Manbearpig]

I'm a big fan of stacking power damage to the Max on casters. So its CSMG for me.

[Saints]

me0120 wrote...

Saints944 wrote...

Just to put in my lousy 2¢ I think Harrier is better then the CSMG, at least in my experience it did better for me.

For QME I would have to agree completely. But for classes that depend on two-power detonations the CSMG becomes more ideal.

Well yea:P, sadly I do see people with the Cerb Adept using the harrier though:?

[Original Twigman]

Notorious P I G wrote...

I'm a big fan of stacking power damage to the Max on casters. So its CSMG for me.

apparently tech went with the radius evo on his nadezzzzz, so we ended up having the same damage behind our nadeumz....

can't recall how much extra damage tac scan grants with the 4th evo with extra 7.5 power damage... but i don't think i had that during our first two games as i was only level 18

[NuclearTech76]

Shepard VI wrote...

BSN is so slow. I remember figuring out the CSMG was godlike over two months ago.

 
Several knew after it came out that it did good damage to armor, procs well, and is light as hell. The power mod makes it even more attractive for casters.

[NuclearTech76]

Original Stikman wrote...

Notorious P I G wrote...

I'm a big fan of stacking power damage to the Max on casters. So its CSMG for me.

apparently tech went with the radius evo on his nadezzzzz, so we ended up having the same damage behind our nadeumz....

can't recall how much extra damage tac scan grants with the 4th evo with extra 7.5 power damage... but i don't think i had that during our first two games as i was only level 18

 
Nah radius on incinerate. I believe I went damage on nades. I do take radius on the demolisher as she has a small base radius on her nades and the stun ability allows me to play her with little to no fitness.

[Cyonan]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

Shepard VI wrote...

BSN is so slow. I remember figuring out the CSMG was godlike over two months ago.

 
Several knew after it came out that it did good damage to armor, procs well, and is light as hell. The power mod makes it even more attractive for casters.

That depends on the caster.

As I pointed out in another thread, something like my Justicar needs to keep casting Reave for the buffs it gives, but the 30% power mod doesn't really mean much to me because I build her as a biotic soldier.

The more weapon based casters wont really care about giving up the Power Magnifier if it means getting a weapon that hits harder.

Something like the Fury isn't going to care either, because she's all about BEs.

[Original Twigman]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Notorious P I G wrote...

I'm a big fan of stacking power damage to the Max on casters. So its CSMG for me.

apparently tech went with the radius evo on his nadezzzzz, so we ended up having the same damage behind our nadeumz....

can't recall how much extra damage tac scan grants with the 4th evo with extra 7.5 power damage... but i don't think i had that during our first two games as i was only level 18

 
Nah radius on incinerate. I believe I went damage on nades. I do take radius on the demolisher as she has a small base radius on her nades and the stun ability allows me to play her with little to no fitness.

ah, my bad, must have misheard you.

[me0120]

Saints944 wrote...

me0120 wrote...

Saints944 wrote...

Just to put in my lousy 2¢ I think Harrier is better then the CSMG, at least in my experience it did better for me.

For QME I would have to agree completely. But for classes that depend on two-power detonations the CSMG becomes more ideal.

Well yea:P, sadly I do see people with the Cerb Adept using the harrier though:?

That's stupid. They should use a Hornet! 

[IamZAE]

So much epeen in this thread, you could almost suck on it

[iOnlySignIn]

Because

(1) Warfighter Package.

(2) Hurricane.