In Response To: Apparently I'm a troll? (RC Master)
: In the interest of completeness, I'm cross-posting a response I made on the
: TiedTheLeader forums in response to this post: Original message
:
: By SG Noodles
: Kinda new here, but I read this over at NE CORE and thought I would pop on by
: (I had to reregister as last time I visited was many many moons ago... I
: digress) and state my congratulations/concerns.
: Firstly I would like to say that RC Masters response, while thought out, was
: also in bad spirit... so I hate to agree with any points he has, because
: he does make a couple... but in a mean spirited sort of way, like an
: educated troll of sorts .
: how to do this, I am a numbers guy, not a words guy, so bear with me...
: I think the setup of this was sound, I like how you found a unit of distance
: that would be complete and accurate in this case. I think that the choices
: of 5, 10, and 15 are also pretty good, given the size of the FWU. While I
: assume you were consistent in your firing of the DMR scoped/unscoped
: between 100 and 85 Bloom, it should have been stated in your analysis
: (just to be more complete). Unfortunately I cannot view the spreadsheet
: itself (right now) through my work firewall, I did peruse it on my phone,
: and so far it looks sound (I will take a closer look at home) and well
: thought out. Bravo Zulu on that, I see way too many messes of spreadsheets
: from people here at work, yours is refreshing!
: Do I think that there should be a larger data set? Yes, I do, probably at
: least 300 kills for each range/setting to get a reasonably accurate
: numbers from which we could draw a solid conclusion.
: Do I think it would change your conclusion? Not likely, I think it would
: change some of the final numbers from which you draw your conclusions, but
: I don't think they would sway enough either way to change the conclusion
: outright. They would only really succeed in causing people like RC Master
: to find another way to be a troll .
: Nice job Hoovaloov, I really enjoyed the read, and loved the science behind
: it (part of me wants more data ). While I don't really play much Halo
: anymore, my son plays a tonne, so I get all the dirty on the updates and
: playlist changes... what keeps me really interested though, are the
: stats!!!!
: Bravo Zulu
: Noodles
: Edit: I also forgot to mention, that having multiple test subjects would also
: lend a little more accuracy, as it would apply in a 'real-world'
: situation, versus just a vacuum, in which you experimented, as different
: players will have a slight difference rate of pace, as well as rate of
: spam. Would be interested in multiple data sets and how they compare...
: but I also understand the amount of time and work this would take.
: Emphasis mine.
: And my response:
: I don't really appreciate being called a troll on a forum I wasn't even a
: member of until today.
: Especially when: A. I stuck to the point and only criticised the article
: itself in what I tried to be a factual, informative tone,
: B. I'm even willing put my money where my mouth is and perform additional
: number crunching,
: C. I did put my money where my mouth was and, without being asked, provided
: a much more thorough wealth of derived stats on the SAME DAY as I
: posted my criticisms.
: If you have criticism of my points, make them. If you agree with the points,
: why not say so? As for my tone, what do you want me to do? Sugar coat
: everything?
: Hoovaloov is presenting the article as an authoratative piece, whose
: conclusions should go some way to dispelling or confirming the idea that
: 85% bloom is better than 100% bloom. The angle he took on that was to
: answer whether 'pacing' was rewarded more than 'spamming' in 85% compared
: to 100%. BTW, I'm going to point out right here that pacing being more
: rewarded was never actually a stated benefit of 85% - they said it was
: 'more rewarding and reliable' to fire, which, looking at the narrower
: spreads of spamming in 85%, we can definitely say it's more reliable, and
: the rewarding part was never vs. different firing cadences.
: So, if you're going to be trying to answer that question then, the experiment
: should be as close to fair as possible, the methodology and data should be
: reported in full, and the analysis should be complete and without bias.
: The original article was not these things and I felt it prudent to point
: them out, especially when I know and Hoovaloov should know , and YOU
: should know that publishing something like this will mean it's
: conclusions will be brandished about as an argument-ender wherever bloom
: and the TU are discussed - and those who agree with the conclusions
: certainly won't delve far enough to find flaw (we already had someone in
: this thread saying they skipped straight to the conclusion). It's much
: better to deal with the issues as soon as possible.
: Let me say that I don't give a fuck what the conclusion is either way.
: While I have my existing beliefs I do not allow them to blind me - I am
: always open to new evidence, arguments or fresh perspectives and am
: willing to update my stance in their light - and I believe this is the
: only way live. My main care is that if you're going to do something like
: this, then the truth and the whole truth are presented.
: To his credit, Hoovaloov incorporated a link to the original data (and
: dispite my criticisms of the methodology we can still see what it tells
: us) and when I took that and ran more tests on it he updated the article,
: including a link to the new spreadsheet, he updated notes on his
: methodology, and even went further than that and ran the randomised test
: that uberfoop was talking about - all good.
: However, again and again the analysis shows signs of confirmation bias. From
: previous participation in discussions with Hoovaloov I know he believes
: 85% is better than 100% bloom - his bias is to prove this true. In Update
: 2, at short range, he is quick to point out that pacing has a higher
: chance of wining in 85% and uses this to support his argument, while
: failing to note that this is purely because of pacing's higher allowable
: rate of fire, while the ROF of full-spamming remains the same, so the
: difference between the two will necessarily be reduced.
: Also, in analysing Joel's Normal distribution comparison (which I don't think
: is really valid , and even Joel himself says is 'just for fun') at medium
: range, he holds a difference of 4.9% as conclusive proof that spamming is
: less effective with no caveats. Convesely, at long range, he says the
: greater difference of 6.49%, in favour of spamming, is suddenly
: inconsequential since it is still better to pace - even though the same
: held true at medium range!
: Oh, I'm biased to and don't represent the full picture either? Fine, I'll
: admit that. I should have noted in this post that when I said things
: like 'the relative difference between pacing and spamming at range is
: reduced' I meant on the difference between the quartiles. That when I said
: its "arguably MORE viable to spam at short range" I meant this
: in the sense that in 85%, you have a 50% chance to kill them in 5 shots at
: around 49/50 frame mark (as opposed to only 25% in 100% bloom) and that by
: the time they're lining up their 5th shot, you'll have your 6th a couple
: of frames away so if they miss your head (which is easier to do with
: minimum bloom) you'll have a very good chance of killing them.
: Still, this criticism of Hoovaloov stands, and I'm not the one writing an
: article making bold claims so the demand of accuracy on him is higher. Or
: put another way, even if it is the pot calling the kettle black, then the
: kettle is still definitely black.
: Overall, the real answer is far more complex than the article is still making
: it seem, and this is worth acknowledging.
: In the interest of full disclosure, wanna know my preconceived bias? Sure.
: 85% necessarily increases the rate of fire that any notion of pacing
: can use. Since the max ROF is still the same, this reduces the gap between
: max-ROF spamming and pacing at all ranges. This makes it 'more consistent'
: as stated however the greatest gains in consistency are to those who
: weren't using the weapon properly (i.e. those who were spamming) -
: Hoovaloov's own data supports this. Additionally, it also necessarily
: buffs the DMR and Needle Rifle at all ranges since this means their kill
: times are lower, because they can fire faster. Firstly I do not believe
: these weapons were in need of a buff in the first place since they already
: dominated their intended ranges and were mis-used at short range with
: success. So in 85% they're even better and encroach further on the niche
: of short range weapons such as the AR (and personally the reason I quit
: Halo 3 was because AR battles sucked and most the game became dominated by
: the BR). The 'skill' (of arguable amount, mitigated by bullet magnetism
: admittedly) of pacing your shot is reduced on the DMR, and lost entirely
: on the NR. The reduction in kill-times runs counter to Reach's stated
: design goal of being a slower paced game and makes it more difficult to
: come back from being behind in shots.
: And really, what was people's main problem with bloom? That you could deviate
: high with your ROF (spam it) and have greater success than expected,
: especially at close range. The TU 'solution' makes the difference between
: spamming and pacing LESS, not more - so we've got buffed mid-range
: weapons, inconistent weapon mechanics between playlists and modes, lan
: compatibility is broken, and the real problem wasn't even addressed.
: I can admit that perhaps putting bloom on ALL precision weapons may not have
: been the best idea since that means there is no 'noob' mid-range weapon
: that does not require mastery of bloom on top of aiming skill to make
: kills. The AR is the 'noob' short range weapon, the pistol the 'pro' one,
: but there is no equivalent at mid range where a lot of encounters happen.
: Look at GoW3 here, they have 3 rifles, one without bloom, one with a
: little bit, and one with a lot. The Lancer has a bit of bloom and is the
: standard rifle, the Hammerburst has no bloom but is only semi-auto and CAN
: be better than the lancer if used right, and the thid rifle requires very
: aggressive pacing outside of point blank but has powerful shots.
: But doing something like that is more of a discussion for a new game where
: the weapons can be built for it from the ground up - instead they remove
: bloom on the NR which with it's red-reticle headshot aim-assist makes it
: pretty fucking ridiculous (and this article didn't even begin to approach
: that issue) and reduces it on the DMR. But this is not to the point where
: it's really consistent and mostly about aiming skill, rather than what
: is really does which is make the bullet-magnetism headshots when your
: reticle is still huge, more conistent. All it does is make firing faster
: better than it was, and it fails to address the knock-on effects on the
: rest of the sandbox.
: If that's still me trolling, then fuck it.
It's OK buddy, you're still our boy!!!
Seriously though, writing with respect for other people's feelings is something that everyone (myself included) should take into consideration in this brave new world of internet communications.
| 
