366 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

So that's every single match? All the time? That's even a majority of your matches?

For most of the last several months, yes.

Frankly, it is currently much more fun coming up with and testing different control schemes than playing MWO "normally". Besides, I do have to justify my decked out RSeat RS1.

My next potential project: Tobii Eye Tracker and Project IRIS or AR glasses.

<Hmm. It seems someone's already been trying the former in MWO.>

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2018 - 02:44 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Vxheous, on 13 February 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'm still waiting for Koniving to put together that MRBC team to prove Tier 1's are actually potatoes.

Some miracles will just never happen in our lifetimes.

Bad enough the amount if misleading of new players that goes on with rubbish videos and totally false information

[Zergling]

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Meta builds are difficult to deal with in their NICHE, when supported appropriately to deal with their weaknesses, but as they are built with team play in mind, the weaknesses are not easy to contend with as they are complimented by other builds that support them.

Most meta builds have a broad niche that revolves around 'killing the enemy as effectively as possible'.

They do not have weaknesses as large as non-meta builds as a result.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

An anti-meta build works around this. It has defenses. If it has LRMs, it has a defense for up close. It isn't dedicated to just one niche. Unlike an AC/20 boat, it has some long range capabilities. Unlike a sniper rig, it has some close range defenses. It can protect itself, it can engage multiple targets simultaineously, it runs cold enough to have endurance to take on the next enemy after the first is dispatched because it isn't built to rely on support. It is built to kill meta mechs without the weaknesses and reliance that meta mechs.are inherently built with.

You described a bracket build, which is a textbook example of a 'bad build' that is unable to fight effectively.
A bracket build is literally worse than a meta build, because by trying to do more than a single thing, it ends up significantly weaker than a meta build in any given engagement.

The best thing for killing a meta build is another meta build, because the weaknesses of meta builds are too small to exploit.
As such, meta vs meta build battles are decided largely by skill, not builds.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't have one. I imagine it won't die as easily. Hellbringers are pushovers.
All CT, no hud, with an LBX-20 and a 5 shot UAC/20.
Pushovers. Giant CT, easy to slaughter.

I'm sorry, but you are demonstrating you lack knowledge about what works in MWO here; the Hellbringer is one of the top tier mechs in the game, especially with laser vomit giving it insane firepower.
While the Hellbringer has less hit points than a mech that has armor and structure quirks, firepower is more important than durability in the MWO meta.

The Uziel 2S on the other hand, is significantly less durable than a Hellbringer despite having some structure quirks, because it has a giant profile with hilariously easy to hit torso hitboxes.
It doesn't have firepower either, even when it runs an XL engine (which makes it even more fragile) it still doesn't come anywhere near to a Hellbringer or other meta mechs.

I ran a Hellbringer with 2x HLL and 5x ERML the other day for the event, and it was hilarious easy mode compared to an Uziel 2S.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

I can name at least one that came from a brand new pilot, less than a month in, that got adopted by many players. Hunchback 4G with AC/20, twin MGs, 3 medium lasers. Its a minor mod of my own design which used 3 SPL instead. Look that one up on meta mechs and tell me where it's ranked.

For a start, that is a sub-optimal build; the MGs are a waste of tonnage. It is otherwise just a regular 4G build, very similar to stock, so any claim to have invented it is just wrong.

Further, the only Hunchback 4G on Metamechs is 1x AC20, 2x ML with a standard 260 engine, not close to the build you describe.
And that build is only 'Tier 3' in the IS variants Tier List; it doesn't appear at all in the Competitive or Meta Tier Lists.
The IS and Clan variants Tier lists arent 'meta lists'; they are a list of the best build for each variant, and because the 4G is only Tier 3, it is regarded as a 'non-meta' mech at best.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

The only way for YOUR statement to be true, is if their opponents are potatoes. Remember, their opponents are ALSO TIER 1, ALSO TOP PLAYERS, whom are STILL USING META MECHS AGAINST THEM and YET COMPLETELY ******* INCOMPETENT...

OR my statement is true. Take your pick, you can't argue both without defeating one of the two arguments. So which is it? Because your logic defeats itself. And that isn't good.



So you mean that they are put into matches with LOTS of EASY TO KILL POTATOES, which allow them to PAD THEIR STATS, and basically have a free time to make themselves LOOK GOOD for the MINDLESS to worship and oogle, while they pump out bad builds for us to use that DO NOT WORK outside of their NICHE, and allow people to line up for the SLAUGHTER?

Huh. No wonder why they do so good. I'm so glad you could enlighten us. I just wish you'd enlighten yourself along the way.


With all the potatoes you just told me that they get put into matches with instead of highly skilled players to fight with and against... is it any wonder? I mean seriously?

You aren't making any sort of sense here.

Players in Tiers 4/5 are definitely worse in skill than those in Tier 1. While not every Tier 1 player is good, on average they are better. That is an unarguable fact.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Actually, what it requires is a low number of matches. Take your TOTAL MATCHES. Give me a ratio of how many matches you ad to do to go from tier 3 to tier 1 versus how many matches you had.

Now compare that to how many matches it takes a new player to go from tier 5 to tier 1 in 200 matches... when they had 250 matches?

It doesn't work like that. Total number of battles played on the account have no relevance; only the first 20 battles have greater PSR weighting.

But feel free to prove my wrong by making a fresh alt and playing 100 battles on it, with screenshots of your scoreboard and PSR meter after each battle.
If things are as you claim, then you will quickly be able to reach Tier 1.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

From the old PSR system in which I'd be put in the same matches with Sean Lang and The B33f. Trial mech, no skill tree, before quirks.
That's skill. 2 versus one against an identical build and a custom Jenner. The Jenner's entire amount of damage was done by me by chasing it across the map for a while, so that's all my work (you can rewind to check).

That's not a good example of skill; that is a fresh mech struggling to get a single solid hit on two opponents that were each one hit from death, while constantly overheating.
A skilled player would have been able to win that fight while taking very little damage in return, instead of being crippled.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Not sure which way that goes, but you made me smile either way so there's a like.

His own statement is that tier 1 players get put together with completely incompetent team mates... yet they fight top players... whom are also tier one, whom are also put together with completely incompetent team mates... therefore these top players are fighting incompetent players...whom are also top players...but incompetent.... it goes round and round like

"This statement is false."
Lets wait for all the brains to fry trying to wrap around the logic behind that.

The problem is that there frequently aren't enough Tier 1 players to adequately assign an equal number of them to each team, resulting in the matchmaker trying to 'average out' team skill levels, by giving the team that has more T1 players a greater number of bad players.


Look at it this way:
Team A: has players of the following skill ratings 10, 2, 2, 2
Team B: has players of the following skill ratings 4, 4, 4, 4

Each team averages out to 4 skill per player, but the player with a '10' skill rating is expected to do more as a result.

What typically happens is the low skill '2' rating players will do something stupid and all die before the the '10' player has killed more than one of the enemy '4' players.
After that the '10' player will be facing 3 to 1 odds, and will have an uphill struggle to pull off a win.

Expand that to 12 vs 12, and you have 'Tier 1 Hell'.


It is a fact that being Tier 1 lowers stats because of this effect; my own stats dropped significantly when I went from Tier 2 to Tier 1.
Eg, when I was Tier 2 I was consistently hitting top 5% in my stats, after I reached Tier 1 I dropped to around top 20% to 30%.

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 09:06 AM, said:

post filled with video links in an attempt 'prove' skill

You know anyone can cherry-pick individual battles right?

I could dump links to my youtube channel with a bunch of my 'good' battles in it, or throw a wall of battle result screenshots at you.
But I won't, because individual battle results don't make a good player, consistency does.

And a consistently good player will have the stats to show for it.

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

But I thought you liked challenges.

I like the challenge of fighting opponents on the enemy team, not struggling to compensate for the incompetence of players on my own team.

If I get beaten by the enemy because they outplayed me, then GG. If I get beaten because my own teammates failing at the most basic level, then it is incredibly frustrating.

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

I don't want to ban stat-shaming because it hurts my precious feelings. I want to ban it because it's a non-argument. It's a logical fallacy. It hurts discourse. Having good stats doesn't magically give you better insight into how to improve the game, and having bad stats doesn't mean you can't have good ideas.

It's an argument from authority. That isn't a logical fallacy, but a legitimate form of argument.

While good players can have bad ideas, and bad players can have good ideas, good players are much more likely to have good ideas, while bad players are much more likely to have bad ideas.

It is literally a case of expert opinion being valued more than layman opinion. Can experts be wrong? Sure, but they are much less likely to be wrong than a non-expert.

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

in context with something that actually isn't related to intellectual abilities

Success at MWO is closely related to intellectual ability; the understanding of MWO game mechanics.

Edited by Zergling, 13 February 2018 - 09:48 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

snip

since you're banging on about fallacies,

1) name-and-shame is against the rules of this forum. which automatically leads to argumentum ad populum. if you require me to list specific individuals (and do i have a list) who put forth badly thought out "balance ideas", maybe take it up with pgi because they make the forum rules, not i.

2) you bring up false dilemma. which is extremely ironic because what you're doing is actually false compromise aka argumentum ad temperatium. you're suggesting that people who demonstrate insufficient knowledge, skill and experience have an equal voice at balancing the game as those that do because they MAY have a good idea. that is an incredibly undesirable outcome for everyone. going by what you're suggesting, i could have the big idea of removing all ballistic weapons in the game because i suck at them, and players would be forced to try that out in the ptr to prove that it's a bad idea (even though it already obviously is).

2) it's really funny because since you waded into fallacy territory, you committed a classic fallacy yourself: your entire post is a classic example of the red herring fallacy. you're attempting to divert attention to the way the argument was presented in order to abandon the original argument in the first place.

good effort, though.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 13 February 2018 - 05:38 PM.

[Mystere]

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 February 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

I'm not arguing in favor of removing stat tracking. I'm arguing in favor of banning "I'm right because my stats are better" type arguments.

And I'm of the opinion that PGI should be consistent when it comes to whether or not stats should be publicly displayed.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Scout Derek, on 13 February 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

Why are you covering up the fact that you tried suggesting longer cool downs for gauss + PPC in exchange for allowing alphas, that got you to where you are now.

as Wingbreaker said, That is not ******* worth it. stop embarrassing yourself, please. play the game, get better at it, and comeback another day when you have some good idea of the meta instead of blurting out dark fantasies that make everyone wince.

Or you know, keep barking up a ****-storm and show PGI that they're right and shouldn't listen to the playerbase. thank you for that man, thanks for showing the dark Knights and jaded ones that they're right, that this place is a vulgar place. I applaud you for this giant and hideous thread that wasn't necessary. keep on it man, I'm sure you're going to make plenty of friends at this rate.

??? I suggested no such thing. You've confused me with the thread's OP. I am not the thread's OP.

Maybe double-check to make sure you're quoting the right person before jumping down his throat.

[Scout Derek]

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 February 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

??? I suggested no such thing. You've confused me with the thread's OP. I am not the thread's OP.

Maybe double-check to make sure you're quoting the right person before jumping down his throat.

Who know's at this point. OP's got apparently multiple account's he plays on.

And yeah, it was the wrong person to quote, sorry about that.

But honestly, I still will say that

Quote

What really needs to happen is that arguments that boil down to "I'm right because my stats are better than yours" should be against forum rules.

I saw someone on another thread try to stat-shame another user because they had a disagreement on politics. It's childish and absurd.

doesn't deserve to be noticed. why you're even going after that is absurd. who cares? Why are people gunna use stats in politics talk? Does that not ring any bells to you at that moment that maybe they're trolling?

In some cases, the stats argument is good, because in concept, and at times, in reality, bad players give awful suggestions to change the game that fits them.

This thread is getting warped though. the basis of this post is a whine one, one that says,

"Omg people are saying my suggestions are bad even though only one said it, I'm gunna go make a post here and complain, maybe I'll get some support!"

Now it's off somewhere else, derailed.

and yeah, again, sorry. wrong quote. I know when I'm wrong and I'll be sure to remember you so that it doesn't happen again.

EDIT: Cleaned up fragments of quotations

Edited by Scout Derek, 13 February 2018 - 07:19 PM.

[Deathlike]

Verilligo, on 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

You seem rather proud of yourself, despite having not actually put forward a counter argument. You can't just point out logical fallacies by name and have that be the full essence of your retort. It doesn't progress the discussion or debate, all you're doing is spouting definitions as though the mere existence of the error in logic defeats the content of the claim.

Also, in reference to Dago's claim that claim that coaches are considered good at advising their boxers despite not being champion boxers themselves, that's true. However if a coach happens to be a good boxer, as many are, and happens to have a record of THEIR boxers being successful, which many do, would their words not be given greater weight. Or another way to put it, if the coach of a sports team leads the group to persistent failure, should they be given the same level of attention as one that consistently leads the team to victory?

There are plenty of great people at their craft, but have a complete inability to explain it to other people. It's sadly a real thing, and of course not every person that excels at what they do can properly express how they do it.

Ideally though, most people that are good at what they do often times can explain how to replicate their success.... but that requires effort from the people listening though....

[Vadhalla]

No!

Sick of people telling the team they are better players and this is how you play the game repeatedly

Then you find out they out they are a potato with a KDR less then 1 (Statistically in the long run, average players should have a KDR of 1 though the seasons) and you raise it with them it all goes quiet.

Being King of potatoe mountain is still a potato

I'm going back to being a spud now.

(Truth hurts, deal with it)

Edited by Vadhalla, 13 February 2018 - 08:15 PM.

[UnofficialOperator]

[Wil McCullough]

Deathlike, on 13 February 2018 - 07:31 PM, said:

There are plenty of great people at their craft, but have a complete inability to explain it to other people. It's sadly a real thing, and of course not every person that excels at what they do can properly express how they do it.

Ideally though, most people that are good at what they do often times can explain how to replicate their success.... but that requires effort from the people listening though....

It's pretty common i think. On the other side, i've never found the inverse to be true - that people bad at their craft have great insight and teaching ability. Personally, everytime i've humoured someone that's woefully bad at what they do, the outcome is always as expected.

edit:
there's an economist ad that sums it up pretty nicely.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 13 February 2018 - 10:53 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 06:23 PM, said:

And I'm of the opinion that PGI should be consistent when it comes to whether or not stats should be publicly displayed.

Which they currently aren't. They display the info, but if you mention it to "shame" a player... that's a violation of the CoC... well...then WHY make it publically available for everyone to see ? Isn't that merely PGI shaming them when anyone can look them up whenever there's any posting in the forums or ranting on chat/voip in the game ? Earlier today someone was ranting there were too many chiefs and not enough indians over VOIP on a polar skirmish match. I looked up his stats... average wlr but the kdr was nearly twice as high...which suggests to me... that he's the sort of player who barks orders and then hides behind the team who are basically shields so he can steal kills and pump his damage figures by lasting the longest. But without the team nearby, his lack of skill really showed (as when he opened up with a rifleman with dual AC/10s, dual MGs and 4 small lasers on a target 400 meters away... so...the lasers produced heat and light but no damage, the MGs made some tinking noises, and he missed with the AC/10s).

[Der Geisterbaer]

Verilligo, on 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

You seem rather proud of yourself, despite having not actually put forward a counter argument.

There is no "pride" involved on my side; merely "amusement" ... and as far as "counter arguments" are concerned: As long as there are no real arguments but only fallacies: where would my "obligaton" or "desire" to "counter" anything come from?

Verilligo, on 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

You can't just point out logical fallacies by name and have that be the full essence of your retort.

I certainly can do exactly that ... particularly in a situation where I already expressed the opinion that there's seems to be no basis for any discussion.

Verilligo, on 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

It doesn't progress the discussion or debate, all you're doing is spouting definitions as though the mere existence of the error in logic defeats the content of the claim.

So you want me or others to "progress" a discussion that is based on fallacious claims and arguments by countering those ... maybe on the same level of "intellectual honesty" since Dunning-Kruger remains the recurring theme?

I have this rather strong feeling that this would be a waste of time and certainly not as entertaining for me. For now I'll go back to watching this show ...

[UnofficialOperator]

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 February 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

For now I'll go back to watching this show ...

Well you're definitely not the guy to ask for advice on how to play the game *well.

PS: added a word. Anyone can play the game.

Edited by UnofficialOperator, 13 February 2018 - 10:41 PM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Original post was “I’ll just leave it here~” by the way.

[Zergling]

Dee Eight, on 13 February 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

(as when he opened up with a rifleman with dual AC/10s, dual MGs and 4 small lasers on a target 400 meters away... so...the lasers produced heat and light but no damage, the MGs made some tinking noises, and he missed with the AC/10s).

Gyah, those sorts of builds trigger me! Stahp!

Like, twin AC10 on a Rifleman is so close to being an ok build. All it needed to do was drop the MGs and ER Smalls and toss in a pair of ER Meds.
It wouldn't be meta or anything great, but at least it'd be fine for twin AC10s.

[Gas Guzzler]

Found the reason this thread exists.

So the general gist is "My stats aren't that good but I don't want people who are better at the game to not take my opinion as gospel, so PGI should hide all stats"?

Interesting.

[Kin3ticX]

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Meta builds are difficult to deal with in their NICHE, when supported appropriately to deal with their weaknesses, but as they are built with team play in mind, the weaknesses are not easy to contend with as they are complimented by other builds that support them. For example a missile boat would have an escort. A laser vomit rig will have a second laser vomit rig handy so that when one overheats the other finishes the job or a ballistic vomit build so that there's a constant looming suppression supporting the can-opener.

In solo queue, such support is unlikely to exist and thus, the blarring obvious weakenesses that come from operating on your own. Laser vomit overheats and becomes helpless. Ballistic boats run out of ammo and can only focus one target at a time. Missile boats wind up without escorts (this is why LRMs are shunned by meta, no support). The list goes on and on. Find weakness, exploit weakness, meta builds are thusly easier to dispatch. They rely on others to carry them through their weaknesses.

An anti-meta build works around this. It has defenses. If it has LRMs, it has a defense for up close. It isn't dedicated to just one niche. Unlike an AC/20 boat, it has some long range capabilities. Unlike a sniper rig, it has some close range defenses. It can protect itself, it can engage multiple targets simultaineously, it runs cold enough to have endurance to take on the next enemy after the first is dispatched because it isn't built to rely on support. It is built to kill meta mechs without the weaknesses and reliance that meta mechs.are inherently built with.

Already gave examples.


I don't have one. I imagine it won't die as easily. Hellbringers are pushovers.
All CT, no hud, with an LBX-20 and a 5 shot UAC/20.
Pushovers. Giant CT, easy to slaughter.


And what tier 4 have you been playing? Because it obviously isn't my tier 4 or tier 3.


I can name at least one that came from a brand new pilot, less than a month in, that got adopted by many players. Hunchback 4G with AC/20, twin MGs, 3 medium lasers. Its a minor mod of my own design which used 3 SPL instead. Look that one up on meta mechs and tell me where it's ranked.


The only way for YOUR statement to be true, is if their opponents are potatoes. Remember, their opponents are ALSO TIER 1, ALSO TOP PLAYERS, whom are STILL USING META MECHS AGAINST THEM and YET COMPLETELY ******* INCOMPETENT...

OR my statement is true. Take your pick, you can't argue both without defeating one of the two arguments. So which is it? Because your logic defeats itself. And that isn't good.



So you mean that they are put into matches with LOTS of EASY TO KILL POTATOES, which allow them to PAD THEIR STATS, and basically have a free time to make themselves LOOK GOOD for the MINDLESS to worship and oogle, while they pump out bad builds for us to use that DO NOT WORK outside of their NICHE, and allow people to line up for the SLAUGHTER?

Huh. No wonder why they do so good. I'm so glad you could enlighten us. I just wish you'd enlighten yourself along the way.


With all the potatoes you just told me that they get put into matches with instead of highly skilled players to fight with and against... is it any wonder? I mean seriously?


Actually, what it requires is a low number of matches. Take your TOTAL MATCHES. Give me a ratio of how many matches you ad to do to go from tier 3 to tier 1 versus how many matches you had.

Now compare that to how many matches it takes a new player to go from tier 5 to tier 1 in 200 matches... when they had 250 matches?

Huh. Did you notice something? It's called MATH. In the total number of matches the new player did, he performed spectacularly and got SKYROCKETED on a JET PACK loaded with 37 Class 1 Jumpjets in 0.00000001 times the Earth's gravity.

You had to do it with 1 class 1 jumpjet, in 15 times Earth's gravity. You had to work for it.
The new guy didn't, he got a low number of matches which results in a low ratio of good versus bad matches, which results in looking far better than you do in a system that doesn't know how to judge skill, just stats relative to the number of matches played.


20 battles with increased weighting, plus low ratio of total matches played, and as long as they do well in their matches played they will sky rocket. Know how they do that? They get a niche mech from meta mechs, they learn that other new players don't know how to kill it,

After all the system goes by ow well you do per match versus how many matches you have, thus the XP bar syndrome. Once they hit tier 2 and tier 1 they begin encountering players that know what to do to kill said meta mech on a regular basis.
Long range meta, wait til its distracted, get in close and slaughter with close range. Energy meta, wait til it burns out and blast it; repeat as necessary. Ammo meta, wait til it gets tunnel vision, do a little dance and insta-kill it. The list goes on.

(Also I don't use the new flamers, it leaves the user very vulnerable very quickly. Old flamers at least had the courtesy of blinding people and a trick to be infinitely cold -- since lets be honest they didn't heat anyone anyway) Leave that for the easy to kill chumps whom try to flame you only to realize -- you run too cold and know how to switch to chain fire.


From the old PSR system in which I'd be put in the same matches with Sean Lang and The B33f. Trial mech, no skill tree, before quirks.
That's skill. 2 versus one against an identical build and a custom Jenner. The Jenner's entire amount of damage was done by me by chasing it across the map for a while, so that's all my work (you can rewind to check).

Using a point and click mech when you know the weakness of every single enemy you face, in an environment where they can't cover their weaknesses with well coordinated team mates... and in your own words, with both teams loaded with potatoes... isn't skill. It's stat padding, which tier one players get to do a LOT of.

...because they're all damn potatoes.

I dont think you know as much about this game as you tell yourself. I mean, im nobody in this game, just a wannabe tryhard casual, but I don't see where you get the street cred to match the length of your posts or your forum title.

The way you try to explain stuff is basically like.... if you can't baffle with brilliance baffle with BS. Its like listening to Deepack Chopra. You are a nice guy and everyone is wrong from time to time but I have seen you post some strange stuff or outright wrong info.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

Kin3ticX, on 14 February 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

I dont think you know as much about this game as you tell yourself. I mean, im nobody in this game, just a wannabe tryhard casual, but I don't see where you get the street cred to match the length of your posts or your forum title.

The way you try to explain stuff is basically like.... if you can't baffle with brilliance baffle with BS. Its like listening to Deepack Chopra. You are a nice guy and everyone is wrong from time to time but I have seen you post some strange stuff or outright wrong info.

The Deepack Chopra killed me. I have watched and laughed at him during many debates i watched on youtube. That guy is nuts with his quantuum woowoo.

[pattonesque]

Kin3ticX, on 14 February 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

I dont think you know as much about this game as you tell yourself. I mean, im nobody in this game, just a wannabe tryhard casual, but I don't see where you get the street cred to match the length of your posts or your forum title.

The way you try to explain stuff is basically like.... if you can't baffle with brilliance baffle with BS. Its like listening to Deepack Chopra. You are a nice guy and everyone is wrong from time to time but I have seen you post some strange stuff or outright wrong info.

If he was any good at the game he wouldn't have a .65 KDR and a 20% survive rate. Obviously KDR has some variance due to who gets the last shot in but that's sustained badness over quite a long time. Basically he dies all the time and can't kill anything.