Dino Might, on 10 April 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:
... but you clearly don't based on your fantasy stories about shooting thousands of advil tablets without missing
It was Bayer asprins... And occasionally chewable vitamin C's.
Quote
...
Will you please stop, take a breath, and consider that you don't know all there is to know about random models representing nature and either listen to what some of us are telling you, or go read a dang book? You have the internet - the sum of all human knowledge - at your fingertips. There is no excuse for continuing this tirade against something you clearly do not understand.
Because SOME people can't do the same, and their continued attempts at watering down OTHER PEOPLE'S skills with RNGs just so that they can continue playing badly without consequences requires the attention of SOMEONE of reason to respond.
Quote
If your argument is no CoF because you don't like RNG, fine. That is basically what you've come down to saying after I've shown you the error of your "reality" arguments. At that point, I have no way to argue with you on the fact that you do not like any RNG. Fine. But the question is then, why is your system the right one? Your rationale to this point is that it is correct because you like it. And then you go call someone else presumptuous?
Why is it right?
BECAUSE: It is UNREASONABLE to have good play be circumvented by an RNG. You pick an unmoving/slow moving target that's unwittingly out in the open, carefully line up your target on them, click the fire button only to have an RNG spuriously decide, that no, you did not hit, because "reality".
NOW, ask yourself, WHO does that sort of thing benefit? Does it benefit the shooter? Does it "force" him to become "better"?
No, of course not. There's not a goddamned thing the shooter can do to control the RNG. It benefits the moron standing/moving out in the open.
It waters down GOOD play in favor of STUPID play.
Quote
You still haven't addressed any of my questions to you:
1. Explain how CoF leads to normalization of results for variously skilled shooters.
It doesn't lead to normalization. A player who is bad at aiming MIGHT get more "lucky" shots with an RNG based CoF, but for a player who is GOOD at aiming it only leads more SPURIOUS misses.
Quote
2. Explain why CoF is not a realistic model for weapon systems, now, or in 3050 (provided we are still building things out of matter and using that to send matter into other matter)
It's unnecessary for any IS weapon that isn't constantly firing rounds. Missile weapons have there unconverged fire, the MG has its unconverged fire, the flamer has its area of affect, LBX has its "cone of fire" already as well, "pulse" lasers are the closest you get, but because the energy beams they fire are massless there's nothing to "logically" cause a "cone of fire" affect, each pulse will follow the previous exactly, then you have regular lasers a beam and a single BEAM can't have a "CONE of FIRE" can it? As far as all other weapons, they are single shot, fired one at a time at a target as large as a 4 story building.
Quote
3. Explain how an engineered system can have 100% precision (again, must be built of matter)
Call me in 3050, we'll talk.
Quote
4. Explain why your skill/prowess at a video game makes a difference in your opinion on the above.
Because, unlike certain people here, I'm not asking for a nerf that is ultimately a detrimental affect on SKILLED play.
Effectively the reasoning I've seen here has been:
"Because a few people can aim really well, the majority die too quickly. We need to water down abilities of people who aim so that they don't always hit what they are aiming at. Because they can hit what they aim at most of the time already, I die too quickly, and that's not good, because that means that least a MAJORITY must be dying too quickly, so the MAJORTY must want this nerf implemented."
Nah.
But keep shoveling.
18
RIP Chris.
