532 réponses à ce sujet

[WillieStyle]

rumination888 wrote...
Setting up a headshot might kill your targetted enemy fast at that moment in time, but you also have to factor in the time it took to set up that headshot in the first place.

You also don't need to aim before shooting a gun.
With an SR, not aiming is obviously bad.
But what if you're using a weapon that shoots so fast, hits so hard, and has such a humungous ammo capacity that missing a few rounds doesn't matter? Do you need to aim then?
Or what if you're using a weapon where you're always right on top of the enemy? Do you need to aim then?

Sigh!
First of all, vhatever explicitly mentioned a pistol.  Not sure why we need to resort to hypothetical weapons here.
Is there any pistol in the game that "shoots so fast, hits so hard, and has such a humungous ammo capacity that missing a few rounds doesn't matter?"  I don't think so but I haven't tried the spray-n-pray while running technique.

If you're right on top of the enemy when you used your weapon, then you employed the "Run then Kill" technique not the "Run while Killing" technique.  As we've already established, "Run then Kill" is no faster than "Kill then Run".

Modifié par WillieStyle, 08 février 2010 - 03:00 .

[tetracycloide]

Ad hominem arguments are tiresome.  Get a degree.  Have a real conversation.

class is irrelevant.  Your argument is the same for soldiers.  Facts remain.  Running reduces kill speed.  Aiming reduces run speed.  You cannot have it both ways.

rumination888 wrote... 
But what if you're using a weapon that shoots so fast, hits so hard, and has such a humungous ammo capacity that missing a few rounds doesn't matter? Do you need to aim then?
Or what if you're using a weapon where you're always right on top of the enemy? Do you need to aim then?

Missing reduces kill speed.  Always matters.

Getting on top of enemy requires time.  Time spent running is equal regardless.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 08 février 2010 - 03:13 .

[Ingahootz]

Tetra don't even worry about what class he's talking about. Your quote from him mentions cloak. You responded correctly.

[tetracycloide]

Ingahootz wrote...

Tetra don't even worry about what he's talking about.

I'm not.

[vhatever]

Running does not reduce skill speed for a soldier, it usually increases it. Not that a moron who can't read basic English could figure that one out. Kill speed is a rate, not an instantaneous measurement, but an average over time.

[rumination888]

WillieStyle wrote...

rumination888 wrote...
Setting up a headshot might kill your targetted enemy fast at that moment in time, but you also have to factor in the time it took to set up that headshot in the first place.

You also don't need to aim before shooting a gun.
With an SR, not aiming is obviously bad.
But what if you're using a weapon that shoots so fast, hits so hard, and has such a humungous ammo capacity that missing a few rounds doesn't matter? Do you need to aim then?
Or what if you're using a weapon where you're always right on top of the enemy? Do you need to aim then?

Sigh!
First of all, vhatever explicitly mentioned a pistol.  Not sure why we need to resort to hypothetical weapons here.
Is there any pistol in the game that "shoots so fast, hits so hard, and has such a humungous ammo capacity that missing a few rounds doesn't matter?"  I don't think so but I haven't tried the spray-n-pray while running technique.

If you're right on top of the enemy when you used your weapon, then you employed the "Run then Kill" technique not the "Run while Killing" technique.  As we've already established, "Run then Kill" is no faster than "Kill then Run".

This is exactly what he wrote,

"It doesn't matter if a fight starts "from a long way away". All that
matters is where you need to go after you have successfully navigated
it. As an example, my soldier usually rushes like crazy. And when the
bullets stop falling, he's already at the spot he needs to be to keep
moving on, while somone who stayed back as sniper is a good 10 seconds
movement away from where he needs to be. That's why there is a
difference between progression and kill rate. But such subtle nuances
are often lost on intellectual midgets, and they are reduced to OMGZORS
WIDOW SHOOTS DUH BULLETS GUD."

Oh, I didnt catch your bottom paragraph.
The first hypothetical was about the LMG.
The second hypothetical was about the shotgun. And only 1 class uses the shotgun effectively. And that class doesn't need to run to use it.

Modifié par rumination888, 08 février 2010 - 03:09 .

[tetracycloide]

vhatever wrote...
Kill speed is a rate, not an instantaneous measurement, but an average over time.

Averages are weighted sums of instantaneous measurements.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 08 février 2010 - 03:09 .

[vhatever]

You are the last person to be commenting on what an average is, at this point. Regardless of your attempted red herring, it does not change the fact a kill rate is not an instantaneous measurement.

Modifié par vhatever, 08 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[Ingahootz]

vhatever wrote...

You are the last person to be commenting on what an average is, at this point. Regardless of your attempted red herring, it does not change the fact an average is not an instantaneous measurement.

WOW! Completely over your head.

I'm loving this.

[vhatever]

Yes, rate = X/time is way over my head. I'd have to consult my elementary school texts to figure that one out.

[Ingahootz]

vhatever wrote...

Yes, rate = X/time is way over my head. I'd have to consult my elementary school texts to figure that one out.

Oh lord you don't even know what he's talking about. I think I'm done for the night, I'm laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes.

This couldn't have been any funnier. Thanks for this, really. You made my night.

[WillieStyle]

rumination888 wrote...

Oh, I didnt catch your bottom paragraph.
The first hypothetical was about the LMG.
The second hypothetical was about the shotgun. And only 1 class uses the shotgun effectively. And that class doesn't need to run to use it.

Ok fine. Say you're a soldier.  Which weapon has the same kill speed with and without aiming?

If we are talking about the Vanguard, then the point is that the two people don't have the same travel speed. Charge dramatically increases travel speed.  This doesn't change the fact that if you have the same kill speed and the same travel speed, there is no difference between the "Run then Kill" and the "Kill then Run" techniques.

Finally, this ridiculous argument started because vhatever claimed that stealthing in close with a pistol was faster than shooting from long range with the sniper rifle.

Earlier on, I stated that this thread didn't have to devolve into a flame war.  I now see that I am part of the problem. I'm done with this particular "discussion."

Modifié par WillieStyle, 08 février 2010 - 03:28 .

[vhatever]

Good lord. A rate is a measurement over time. If "sniper boy" has a kill rate of of 10 enemies a minute, and "rusher boy" has a kill rate of 10 enemies a minute, both will have killed 5 enemies in 30 seconds. But in that thirty seconds, "rusher boy" covered 10 seconds of movement, 10 seconds that now must be made up by "sniper boy". Now the rusher roboy has prgressed further, thus faster, than the sniper boy despite both having the same kill rate.



This isn't god damn infinitesimal calculus.

[rumination888]

WillieStyle wrote...

rumination888 wrote...

Oh, I didnt catch your bottom paragraph.
The first hypothetical was about the LMG.
The second hypothetical was about the shotgun. And only 1 class uses the shotgun effectively. And that class doesn't need to run to use it.

Ok fine. Say you're a soldier.  Which weapon has the same kill speed with and without aiming?

If we are talking about the Vanguard, then the point is that the two people don't have the same travel speed. Charge dramatically increases travel speed.  This doesn't change the fact that if you have the same kill speed and the same travel speed, there is no difference between the "Run then Kill" and the "Kill then Run" techniques.

Finally, this ridiculous argument started because vhatever claimed that stealthing in close with a pistol was faster than shooting from long range with the sniper rifle.

Earlier on, I stated that this thread didn't have to devolve into a flame war.  I now see that I am part of the problem. I'm done with this particular "discussion."

The LMG kills much faster if you play aggressively and run forward from cover to cover with Adrenaline Rush up than if you stood back passively. The Soldier was made to withstand attacks with Adrenaline Rush, even on Insanity. Its part of the reason why theres a debate about whether or not the Revenant was better than the Vindicator. Those people try to use the Revenant the same way as a Vindicator and wonder why the Vindicator is better. But I digress.

vhatever never said anything about "run then kill" or "kill then run" in his quote I posted. Read it again.

Context is very easily lost in a discussion. I can see how it devolved into a flame war.
They were talking about how Warp was uber at level 5, then Ingahootz talked about Incinerate and the sniper rifle. Then vhatever talked about how Ingahootz won't be one shotting anything with the sniper rifle if he goes up the incinerate line first. He adds that the pistol would be more effective than the sniper rifle at that point. And the discussion just fell apart after that.

Modifié par rumination888, 08 février 2010 - 03:47 .

[Hoffburger]

vhatever wrote...

You are the last person to be commenting on what an average is, at this point. Regardless of your attempted red herring, it does not change the fact a kill rate is not an instantaneous measurement.

Dude, we already know you are a moron, you don't need to confirm it further by yet again failing at using the correct idiom. Do you even know what a Red Herring is? Yet again what you are trying to claim is that he is using a Straw Man argument.

Kids these days.

[Hoffburger]

vhatever wrote...

Good lord. A rate is a measurement over time. If "sniper boy" has a kill rate of of 10 enemies a minute, and "rusher boy" has a kill rate of 10 enemies a minute, both will have killed 5 enemies in 30 seconds. But in that thirty seconds, "rusher boy" covered 10 seconds of movement, 10 seconds that now must be made up by "sniper boy". Now the rusher roboy has prgressed further, thus faster, than the sniper boy despite both having the same kill rate.

This isn't god damn infinitesimal calculus.

Since you seem to understand what a rate is then you should know what a damn initial value is. The person who has to rush in close to start effectively killing will have the same rate but wont start at the same time. The person who can kill at any range starts killing at time 0, the person who has to rush up to effectively kill starts killing at time 0+t.

Not to mention that sniper rifles are more than capable of rushing while picking enemies off, especially with the Widow because you can run between reloads.

It's ok, you're young (I think, you might have a mental disability, in which case I'll call Jerry for you) you will learn how to have an intellectual argument at some point.

[vhatever]

No, it's complete red herring. It does not address the original argument, and only attempts to divert the argument in the direction of mathematical semantics. That would be an especially scary scenario for you, considering your inability to count past one.

[Ingahootz]

vhatever wrote...

No, it's complete red herring. It does not address the original argument, and only attempts to divert the argument in the direction of mathematical semantics. That would be an especially scary scenario for you, considering your inability to count past one.

Well I decided to check back just before going to bed. I know it's tough but this is what Tetra is talking about.

You're going to clear Mordin's entire mission. You're going to figure out your kill rate. You can't simply do X/time, because there's breaks in between fights.

Have a read:

http://www.dtc.dla.m...alcaverages.htm

Make sure you read both parts. If you READ what he said you'd know exactly what he's referring to. No reading in between the lines is required.

I know this went completely over your head, because you didn't actually READ what he was saying. Hopefully this clears this up. If you can't understand this, god help you. It's so damned basic.

Edit: Oh and one last thing. I'm pretty sure Tetra is either mocking you, being comical, or both. You just took it to the next level with your response without actually thinking before you typed. That's the part I found really funny. He egged you on without even trying.

Modifié par Ingahootz, 08 février 2010 - 04:46 .

[vhatever]

You and tetra have a lot in common. Idiots who pretend to know far more than they do, often times getting in way over their diminutive heads, resolving to red herrings and non sequitur  as argument after argument their position gets destroyed. Then when made a complete fool, they pretend like it didn't happen and start all over again.

Modifié par vhatever, 08 février 2010 - 05:03 .

[Mordigan]

Hoffburger wrote...

According to half the people in this thread you can't do it by cloaking and using the Widow. If you can't do it with the Widow, you definitely can't do it with the Claymore.

It should be possible using an infiltrator with assassination cloak..  I know I've one shotted harbingers on Veteran, but I don't know if the same would be possible on insanity.. 

The Claymore gets the 2x damage bonus for close range, which helps a lot.  Plus if you can score a headshot, that increases the damage even more.. 

The Widow does a ton of base damage, combined with the headshot bonus, ammo bonus and assassination cloak, should definitely be feasible to one shot a Harbinger.

[Soruyao]

Mordigan wrote...

Hoffburger wrote...

According to half the people in this thread you can't do it by cloaking and using the Widow. If you can't do it with the Widow, you definitely can't do it with the Claymore.

It should be possible using an infiltrator with assassination cloak..  I know I've one shotted harbingers on Veteran, but I don't know if the same would be possible on insanity.. 

The Claymore gets the 2x damage bonus for close range, which helps a lot.  Plus if you can score a headshot, that increases the damage even more.. 

The Widow does a ton of base damage, combined with the headshot bonus, ammo bonus and assassination cloak, should definitely be feasible to one shot a Harbinger.

I went for full assassin/assassin cloak/tungsten/widow  and cloaked and shot harbinger in the head, and it took 2-3 (it was a few days ago, I don't remember exactly.  More than one though.) shots to take down the barrier and one shot to take down the armor.

Did I do something wrong?  Maybe my build was missing something or I was missing an upgrade.

It took me six shots to kill a scion with that build.

[Roxlimn]

Need the headshot headgear and Miranda to boost the damage further.

[Soruyao]

Roxlimn wrote...

Need the headshot headgear and Miranda to boost the damage further.

I wore the headshot gear all throughout the game, but I didn't have miranda.   That doesn't seem like it could account for me having to fire more than one shot to get through the barrier though.   Isn't miranda's bonus just 15%?

Maybe I missed the headshot. =o  Does anyone know exactly how much a headshot multiplies your damage by, numerically?  (before the headshot gear and after?)

Do you think that could account for the differences on the scions?   Where do you need to shoot them for it to be a headshot anyway?  I didn't notice much damage difference between shooting them in the human looking head parts or the bulge at the top of them.

Modifié par Soruyao, 08 février 2010 - 07:33 .

[Mordigan]

Soruyao wrote...

I went for full assassin/assassin cloak/tungsten/widow  and cloaked and shot harbinger in the head, and it took 2-3 (it was a few days ago, I don't remember exactly.  More than one though.) shots to take down the barrier and one shot to take down the armor.

Did I do something wrong?  Maybe my build was missing something or I was missing an upgrade.

It took me six shots to kill a scion with that build.

To kill harbingers, I would imagine that warp ammo would be better than tungsten ammo, because harbingers have barrier.

Sniper rifles are natively weak against barrier and shields, but excel against armor.  For shotguns, it's the opposite.

To kill the Harbinger with the Claymore, I used inferno ammo, but this was done on Veteran.

Still, for enemies like the Harbinger, I don't think there is any difference between the levels.  Even on normal, the Harbinger still has armor and barrier...  It's his henchmen that make the biggest difference.  Drones on normal and veteran don't have barrier, but on hardcore and insanity they do.

Another reason it may be easier to kill harbingers with Vanguards as opposed to infiltrators, is because heavy charge inflicts considerable damage on barriers in and of itself, and when followed up by a shotgun blast to the dome in close range for 2x+ damage, it's pretty devastating.

Modifié par Mordigan, 08 février 2010 - 08:27 .

[MANoob]

Mordigan wrote...
Still, for enemies like the Harbinger, I don't think there is any difference between the levels. 

There is a huge diferense between enemy total health/armor/barrirer on NG+ and Insanity. I suppose its the same for Insanity and lower difficulties. Most players who actually tested it (including myself) say that its impossible to 1 shot harbinger on insanity, its not even close to 1 shot. Arguably its possible to 2 shot him. I tend to believe this until proven otherwise.

Modifié par MANoob, 08 février 2010 - 09:10 .