Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
Apparently I'm a troll? | |
Posted By: RC Master | Date: 1/20/12 6:43 p.m. |
In Response To: Statistical Analysis of DMR Behavior (Hoovaloov) In the interest of completeness, I'm cross-posting a response I made on the TiedTheLeader forums in response to this post:
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:
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.
|
|
Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |