So you can always spot a shimmer when you can? This is another example of the Toupee Fallacy. The Toupee Fallacy can be summed up by the following phrase: "All toupees look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake".

Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Toupee_fallacy

So if you saw a convincing one you wouldn't be able to see that it's a fake toupee. The same applies to the cloak shimmer. The shimmer is only apparent to you as long as you catch it which implies there is also potentially equally many moments when you are unable to see a cloak shimmer especially given how the human eye functions.

Believe it or not, your eyes and mind play tricks on you. I have studied quite a bit on human anatomy so I know a few things about this. The mind and eyes work together to filter out parts of the world you see that the mind thinks is irrelevant to you. Here is a little trick you can do to confirm this. You can do this at home on your free time.

Look at your monitor and set it so that you have a white background. Cover one eye and make a pin-size hole with your index and your thumb to look through while facing the monitor's white background. Now shake that pin-size hole up and down. Notice anything odd emerging? Perhaps you're seeing black lines that look like veins or capillaries on the white background. Believe it or not, those really are your veins you're seeing. In the human eye, the veins cut in front of the light receptors of the retina of your eye (the cylinders and cones). As light passes through the veins it creates a shadow on the recepters. The mind knows this and considers the veins as irrelevant to what the eye is really trying to see. So the mind filters out the shadows produced by the veins by overlaying parts of the scenery that you see over those shadows to compensate. This also explains why you have a blind spot on both of your eyes which can cause you to miss things like the shimmer of a cloak.

Think about it. For every moment you spot a shimmer, there is also an equal (if not greater) number of moments when you didn't see the shimmer. Thus the toupee fallacy comes to mind when someone says "I could see the shimmer just fine".

I like Judges vids but he kinda hyperfocues too much on details and doesn't see everything else.

when it comes to solutions he doesnt see everything else, i should have said that my mistake.

LOL so Judge is still making some merc's panties wet by his accent eh?

OK, other side of the coin, you are to check your surroundings and know that when hacking an objective, ANYBODY can sneak up on you unseen cloak or not and get damage points in before you have a time to react. That is the risk you take when hacking a supply depot or a NULL cannon.

So that's a very poor example for the "getting a shot off before decloaked" problem.

Another side of the coin, its the mechanics of war. Fairness is pretty much the last bullet point on the list, if not at all.

If the mercenary was moving around, as he should have been, while hacking, his chance of survival are increased by small percentage. That's still worth it compared to just standing there and hacking, allowing any enemy to get a decent amount of damage on you before you react.

I say this with no ill will. I'm just stating the truth here.

Nothing can be said to you guys because whatever Judge says, you guys go with it. And if someone disagrees, you guys either attack the difference of opinion without understanding it, just equating it to mudslinging instead of valid points.

OR

Dismiss it all together.

I'm smart enough to understand its a test. But its a poor test. The fact remains, when someone is hacking the supply depot, you're vulnerable to many things, not just a cloaked scout who can get a shot off before he decloaks.

Seeing that as his first example just doesn't make sense to me. How can we have a valid discussion on the matter when his first "test" shows a mercenary who just stands out a supply depot with his back turned?

Not only that, but the mercenary sat with his back towards the open field. THE OPEN FIELD! LOL! That's asking for trouble. He could have been FG'd. Sniped from the tower. Blasted from a HMG. Bombarded by a dropship. Blown apart by a well tossed grenade.

He didn't even need to cloak to get to that CalAss player. So again, its a poor example for a test.

So until you guys are able to accept differences opinions, then you guys will no longer get a broader scope to the picture. Judge makes a video and its final with you guys. No one else can say anything else to it. Unless of course, that person is praising then its alright.

Are you that narrow minded? The hacker could not see the scout period because he was hacking a suppy depot. Duh!

Cloak or uncloaked, the scout getting a shot before he decloaks doesn't make a difference!! The same thing would happen if I blasted him with my HMG.

It is implied that the scout who gets a shot off before decloaking puts the scout at a advantage and the mercenary at a disadvantage

BUUUUUT....(wait for it!)

If the mercenary has seen the scout cloaked, moving with a shimmer, then IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF THE SCOUT GOT THE SHOT OFF BEFORE DECLOAKING OR NOT!!!!!!!

If you don't see ANYBODY, you will be at a disadvantage!!!!

So what is the point of the argument???

Show me somebody who is AWARE of the scout's presence. Show me that video and make your test from there. NO YOU CAN"T BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVE HIS TEST TO BE INADEQUATE SINCE THE MERC IS AWARE WHICH WOULD NEGATE HIS ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SHOT BEING LET OFF BEFORE DECLOAKING BECAUSE THAT MERC WOULD BE FIRING UPON THE SCOUT BEFORE HE EVEN SHOOTS!!

If you are aware it wouldn't even matter!!!! WOW!

Smh. You are not thinking. You just listen to what he says and what he shows and you automatically agree without considering the variables.

The test proves nothing and is highly inadequate as a point of discussion. I have provided another side of the coin that you and many others ignore.