DUST Search - Some of best players on here have a strange way of thinking.

Goat of Dover wrote:

Sorry Tiel I still disagree if the match is balanced in skill and I have more life and kill you in one more bullet of damage than you do in so much time then I will kill you and have more life. That is what I specced for to kill you first and to have just a little bit more life than I would have.

I am also looking at it a little bit different than I was before now to. I am running a scout with the AR right now because it is almost free. I am also running armor instead of shields so I can put damage mods into my highs when I have more than one. lol. So for me to kill you in one more bullet than I did before is really important to me, I barely have life as it is so the quicker you go down the better. This is my whole theory behind this the quicker you go down and the more life I have at the end of the gun fight the better and I will pay that extra money, PG, and CPU for that to happen. All for that little bit of an edge, people will do a lot to just be a little bit better because that is all you need to win.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 01:50:00 - [1] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 02:03:00 - [2] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto. So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear. Because that makes sense, apparently. Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade. People are complaining because there's no sense of character progression when there's no benefit to using anything "better."
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 02:08:00 - [3] - Quote Goat of Dover wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto. So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear. Because that makes sense, apparently. Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade. People are complaining because there's no sense of character progression when there's no benefit to using anything "better." There is though its called a "tie breaker". Sorry if that is spelled wrong. It's not a tie breaker if you have to sacrifice something on your fit in order to equip that higher level gun that takes 40 or so more cpu in order to kill someone in zero to one fewer bullets.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 04:10:00 - [4] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto. even 0,5% is a reason to upgrade. Provided you have the PG and CPU, of course... No it doesn't, not if it leads to you doubling the cost of your fit for no kill advantage. Do I need to bring out my bullets-to-kill spreadsheet again and get another thread locked? To everyone who missed the point of my response earlier, I made the mistake of saying "gear" when I was talking mainly about "weapons." Though, upgrading things like a shield extender for half a bullet of survivability is arguably useless as well.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 05:06:00 - [5] - Quote Goat of Dover wrote: Sorry Tiel I still disagree if the match is balanced in skill and I have more life and kill you in one more bullet of damage than you do in so much time then I will kill you and have more life. That is what I specced for to kill you first and to have just a little bit more life than I would have. I am also looking at it a little bit different than I was before now to. I am running a scout with the AR right now because it is almost free. I am also running armor instead of shields so I can put damage mods into my highs when I have more than one. lol. So for me to kill you in one more bullet than I did before is really important to me, I barely have life as it is so the quicker you go down the better. This is my whole theory behind this the quicker you go down and the more life I have at the end of the gun fight the better and I will pay that extra money, PG, and CPU for that to happen. All for that little bit of an edge, people will do a lot to just be a little bit better because that is all you need to win. Ok, so you're running a scout with AR. You also want to use damage mods. Let's look at this. You grab your vk.1 scout suit, throw on 3 damage mods and a grab a proto gun. If you maxed your circuitry but didn't bother with light weapon upgrades, you now have 22 cpu to use for your grenade, 3 lows, and 3 equipment slots. If you used a vk.0 suit, you'd have negative 7 cpu to work with (good luck). If you maxed your light weapon upgrade and proficiency, I'm going to assume they stack in terms of cpu0.750.85, you'd have a whole 55 cpu to work with on the vk.1 for all those slots (vk.0 would have 26 cpu). If you ran an advanced weapon (which with my bullet-to-kill spreadsheet will tell you that you'll kill in about 1 less bullet), you'd have 10-28 more cpu available depending on your light weapon upgrade/proficiency investment. The smallest armor repairer is 20 cpu by itself, making your max availability with a proto weapon 35 cpu to fill 2 more low slots, a grenade and 3 equipment slots. If you went for raw hp beyond that, screw nanohives you'll let someone else feed you ammo, you'd have +152 hp from a basic and advanced armor plate, leaving you with a whole 5 cpu. You go up against a guy with an advanced gun, same damage mod fit but he has 28 more cpu for a total of 63 to work with. He can fit 2 proto plates for a total of +230 hp. He has 78 more hp than you. It takes you 2 more bullets to kill him than it would take to kill someone in your fit. It takes him 1 more bullet to kill you than it would take your fit. He wins because his extra survivability outweighs your extra damage. See what I mean by sacrificing to fit a proto weapon (that doesn't really help you much)?
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 633	Posted - 2013.01.13 05:31:00 - [6] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: what you're describing is a super simplified encounter where both players are standing 10 feet from one another. Neither of them are moving, and they both fire at the exact same time. which just isn't realistic for a game like this. This is also the type of mind set that my OP talks about. Good players trying to justify reasons why they should be able to kill more, and die less for the gear they use. Sure, it would make sense in a game like halo 4 where the DMR dominates every other starter weapon in the game. It has a greater impact because everyone has the same health. But in this game, it's different. He was the one describing it in that way, that's why I built the example around that kind of scenario. I don't assume people are just gonna stand there and face each other holding R1 til someone dies, which is why I think the one or zero bullets less to kill for upgrading a weapon isn't significant. That 1 bullet of killing power is rarely a deciding factor when you take into account people moving around and aiming inaccuracy.