DUST Search - Everybody is crying again and this time it's the AR?

meri jin wrote:

Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:

meri jin wrote:

Like I said, nothing personal. But this number is still nothing but a opinion.
And selling them as prove and total is dangerous.

Just imagine the AE slavedriver *cough* CCP Rouge is staying behind a poor CCP programmer swinging a whip and screaming: "REMOVE THE 30% FROM THE AR, AND MAKE IT BACK AVAILABLE VIA MICRO TRANSACTION!"

Which falls along the same logic lines of how you are trying to dismiss the information. It's nothing but your opinion because you don't have any personal research to back up the dismissal?

See, that kind of logic only falls into nasty unrefuted loops mostly because the opposing party refuses to collect data for themselves just in case the opposition may be right. It happens all the time in politics.

Your "data" is based on one video. And this does not count for me as a data. Not on AR, not on other weapons. One video is no enough to run around and tell people that 30% is proven. Of course I'm not collecting, why should I? No healthy-minded person would believe "data" from one video. (which we haven't even see)


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 226	Posted - 2013.10.15 05:28:00 - [1] - Quote It did receive a 30% damage buff with hit detection. I'm not surprised that the people who want the "easy mode guns" want to defend this tooth and nail. :/
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 228	Posted - 2013.10.15 05:50:00 - [2] - Quote meri jin wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: It did receive a 30% damage buff with hit detection. I'm not surprised that the people who want the "easy mode guns" want to defend this tooth and nail. :/ Where did you get that number? I didn't even realize that I was defending... thank you for showing me. Oh you are quite defending alright: Summary of what you wrote: "I'm going to try and ridicule people who complain about the AR instead of collecting actual information on balance. There's no point in me investigating the Time to Kill within each weapon's optimal range, such as for HMG vs the AR nor other such weapons which are commonly complained over." On average about 4-5 bullets were missing their targets (of the bullets actually directed at a target) prior due to hit detection issues. Now since almost all of them hit damage has gone up. That means killing a few bullets sooner. That may not seem like much but when an armor/shield mod only improves about 1-3 bullets worth of damage the end result is much faster kills essentially negating said mod in favor of a shorter kill time. Well it's not "didn't hit" as much as "was not calculated as damage". This discrepancy was noted and thus the hit detection was updated.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 230	Posted - 2013.10.15 06:17:00 - [3] - Quote meri jin wrote: @Dovallis Martan JenusKoll where did you get the 30% ? The reduction in Time to Kill relative before and after the patch.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 232	Posted - 2013.10.15 06:29:00 - [4] - Quote meri jin wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: meri jin wrote: @Dovallis Martan JenusKoll where did you get the 30% ? The reduction in Time to Kill relative before and after the patch. How did you measure it? By using the weapons myself and by watching recordings. I'm not making a doctorate off of these things, so I didn't keep official records. If you wish to spend time collecting data and making it accurate on a video game, go right ahead. I merely estimated the encounter time reduction, and rounded it Down to the closest 10%. TTK used to be about 4-5 seconds, now it's 2-3 seconds with the AR. If you think it's faulty in any way I welcome you to write up that doctorate on damage dispersal that you so desperately want to see.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 232	Posted - 2013.10.15 06:36:00 - [5] - Quote meri jin wrote: Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: I have no idea? Maybe try?? looking up posts by this guy: CCP WOLFMAN Source please. Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: By using the weapons myself and by watching recordings. I'm not making a doctorate off of these things, so I didn't keep official records. If you wish to spend time collecting data and making it accurate on a video game, go right ahead. I merely estimated the encounter time reduction, and rounded it Down to the closest 10%. TTK used to be about 4-5 seconds, now it's 2-3 seconds with the AR. If you think it's faulty in any way I welcome you to write up that doctorate on damage dispersal that you so desperately want to see. That you. All I want to know was that you made this number up. Now please stop posting this ** in my topic. OK? Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:** It did receive a 30% damage buff with hit detection. I'm not surprised that the people who want the "easy mode guns" want to defend this tooth and nail. :/ This number is now officially made up! Recorded games are "made up"? Okay whatever. Since the game itself does not qualify as a source what does?
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 232	Posted - 2013.10.15 07:02:00 - [6] - Quote meri jin wrote: My profession teaches me a lot new every day. But there is one constant through all the years: Never trust a statistic that you don't manipulate be yourself. And this fits very well for this 30%. Or are you going to tell me that you recorded a couple of matches with the the same latency, same skill level, same fitting, same enemies, hitting the same spot, using the same distance and various other things that I cant think of BEFORE the patch and did the same thing after the patch? And after that you collect the results and build a average number and this number turns out to be the 30%? With semi-randomized bullet fire spread and moving targets? The information you're asking for is bizarrely detailed and would possibly hold weight if the TTK went from 4-5s to 3.5-4.5s something tiny like that would require such a precise measuring methodology. When the averages change from 4-5 to 2-3, you don't need precise metrics to see that's a 50%-25% possible range of reduction, as 2 to 4 is the most dramatic, whie 3-4 is the least dramatic. (the 5 to 2 I'd consider an outlier so I ignored it completely) It's like in Statistics. You don't use tests that are more specific than what you absolutely need because they simply waste time and effort.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 232	Posted - 2013.10.15 07:30:00 - [7] - Quote meri jin wrote: Like I said, nothing personal. But this number is still nothing but a opinion. And selling them as prove and total is dangerous. Just imagine the AE slavedriver cough CCP Rouge is staying behind a poor CCP programmer swinging a whip and screaming: "REMOVE THE 30% FROM THE AR, AND MAKE IT BACK AVAILABLE VIA MICRO TRANSACTION!" Which falls along the same logic lines of how you are trying to dismiss the information. It's nothing but your opinion because you don't have any personal research to back up the dismissal? See, that kind of logic only falls into nasty unrefuted loops mostly because the opposing party refuses to collect data for themselves just in case the opposition may be right. It happens all the time in politics.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 232	Posted - 2013.10.15 07:52:00 - [8] - Quote meri jin wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: meri jin wrote: Like I said, nothing personal. But this number is still nothing but a opinion. And selling them as prove and total is dangerous. Just imagine the AE slavedriver cough CCP Rouge is staying behind a poor CCP programmer swinging a whip and screaming: "REMOVE THE 30% FROM THE AR, AND MAKE IT BACK AVAILABLE VIA MICRO TRANSACTION!" Which falls along the same logic lines of how you are trying to dismiss the information. It's nothing but your opinion because you don't have any personal research to back up the dismissal? See, that kind of logic only falls into nasty unrefuted loops mostly because the opposing party refuses to collect data for themselves just in case the opposition may be right. It happens all the time in politics. Your "data" is based on one video. And this does not count for me as a data. Not on AR, not on other weapons. One video is no enough to run around and tell people that 30% is proven. Of course I'm not collecting, why should I? No healthy-minded person would believe "data" from one video. (which we haven't even see) So in other words, you're not going to check if what I said is right in the first place because: "I just don't want to." After making all that fuss about sources and estimated game results? You're not even going to look into something for yourself? This reminds me of that "World is flat" argument I had a while back... This guy claimed that the world was flat, but I told him that I had checked it myself, because the angle of the sun from my house and my cousin's house about 200 miles due north was different, hence proving a curve. He claimed "Well it's your information, so it's not official" I then asked him to attempt the measurements himself, but he declined because he just didn't want to. Was this guy right? or was he wrong? To himself he was right because he never did anything to even hint at a change of mind. I personally think this guy was just being a jerk, but you never know... he may actually have believed the world to be flat.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 234	Posted - 2013.10.15 08:08:00 - [9] - Quote meri jin wrote: @Dovallis I'm ignoring you from this point, flat word, one video comparing and so on. claiming 30% from one video is ridicules. This is not a proper analysis. You're the only one who said it was from one video. If you're not willing to do some research for yourself you have no right to debunk mine, even if it is heavily faulty.