|
Post by zany on Sept 24, 2010 19:19:26 GMT -5
I'm an aggressive player, like to get really close... so i was experimenting what i rather use mag ammo or armor, which one suits it best?
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Sept 24, 2010 20:44:13 GMT -5
Magnum ammo suits everything best.
|
|
|
Post by zany on Sept 25, 2010 4:49:08 GMT -5
^lol ok thanks Den!
|
|
|
Post by zany on Oct 1, 2010 19:57:34 GMT -5
another question Den, with the shotguns (buckshot) i rather use mag or marks training?
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Oct 2, 2010 0:19:14 GMT -5
Since you can't take marksman with shotguns... Magnum ammo.
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 2, 2010 0:40:00 GMT -5
I would think body armor actually suits everything best since if you were to quantify the costs to benefits you have no benefit from magnum when not firing while the armor is always active and can help you scramble to break line of sight.
Furthermore, assuming that the metagame heavily, if not overwhelmingly, has a tendency for +damage, the only logical response would be to counter with armor and a knowledge of likely routes and sight lines and in general playing more prudently.
|
|
|
Post by onikage on Oct 2, 2010 2:27:33 GMT -5
I would think body armor actually suits everything best since if you were to quantify the costs to benefits you have no benefit from magnum when not firing while the armor is always active and can help you scramble to break line of sight. Furthermore, assuming that the metagame heavily, if not overwhelmingly, has a tendency for +damage, the only logical response would be to counter with armor and a knowledge of likely routes and sight lines and in general playing more prudently. By the same logic, body armor doesn't help you when you're shooting and not being shot at...which happens a lot. If you're on the receiving end of unsuspected fire more often than the delivering end, you're doing it wrong. The idea that body armor "counters" magnum ammo is baseless. You might as well say that magnum ammo counters magnum ammo.
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 2, 2010 4:46:34 GMT -5
I would think body armor actually suits everything best since if you were to quantify the costs to benefits you have no benefit from magnum when not firing while the armor is always active and can help you scramble to break line of sight. Furthermore, assuming that the metagame heavily, if not overwhelmingly, has a tendency for +damage, the only logical response would be to counter with armor and a knowledge of likely routes and sight lines and in general playing more prudently. By the same logic, body armor doesn't help you when you're shooting and not being shot at...which happens a lot. If you're on the receiving end of unsuspected fire more often than the delivering end, you're doing it wrong. The idea that body armor "counters" magnum ammo is baseless. You might as well say that magnum ammo counters magnum ammo. It's a very common thing to be surprised by fire in any battlefield, there is simply no real or effective feedback to avoid surprise, either visual or aural. And that's to say nothing of full games of rush, conquest or SDM where it is very easy to be effectively spawn killed within a few seconds or base raped irrespective of smoke cover or anything else. To say otherwise is pedantic and inaccurate, especially when the OP is describing a shotgun user closing the gap into his optimal range. The marginal benefit of magnum in that case is insignificant compared to more hitpoints. As for my use of the word counter you misunderstand, I don't mean literally offsets magnum but that it represents a practical strategic alternative given the limitations I described above.
|
|
|
Post by onikage on Oct 2, 2010 17:32:11 GMT -5
It's a very common thing to be surprised by fire in any battlefield, there is simply no real or effective feedback to avoid surprise, either visual or aural. And that's to say nothing of full games of rush, conquest or SDM where it is very easy to be effectively spawn killed within a few seconds or base raped irrespective of smoke cover or anything else. To say otherwise is pedantic and inaccurate, especially when the OP is describing a shotgun user closing the gap into his optimal range. The marginal benefit of magnum in that case is insignificant compared to more hitpoints. As for my use of the word counter you misunderstand, I don't mean literally offsets magnum but that it represents a practical strategic alternative given the limitations I described above. The "marginal benefit" you refer to is frequently the difference between killing an opponent in one shot or killing them in two when using a shotgun. There is a substantial range wherein a shot would be a 1HK with MA, but not without it. If you honestly believe that more armor will save you when you're in CQC and your first shot didn't kill your opponent, you either haven't played the game or you've played against really bad competition. Furthermore, you are incorrect to say the the original question was about a shotgun user closing the gap to enter his effective range. Apparently you've inferred that from the fact that his follow-up question was about shotguns, but his original question was simply as to which spec suits an aggressive player in CQC fighting. The correct answer is Mag Ammo. Finally, you are responding to an argument I did not make. I am not asserting that it is somehow possible to never be ambushed. I am saying that it is possible to ambush other people more often than you yourself are ambushed. Situational awareness and tactical movement, alongside squad coordination when possible, all have an effect on this. Situation 1: He sees you, you don't see him. Situation 2: You see him, he doesn't see you. Situation 3: Both of you see eachother. In #1, BA helps and MA doesn't. In #2, MA helps, BA doesn't. In #3, MA and BA both help. Since a good player will limit the number of times situation #1 occurs and maximize the number of times situation #2 occurs, a good player will use magnum ammo. If one isn't particularly good, but wishes to become better, one should use magnum ammo. If one isn't particularly good, and just wants to die slower than usual, one should use body armor.
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 2, 2010 21:13:18 GMT -5
If you honestly believe that more armor will save you when you're in CQC and your first shot didn't kill your opponent, you either haven't played the game or you've played against really bad competition. Cute ad homs. I'm flattered by how well you know me. Whether the question is about shotguns or aggressive play, prudence favors armor. On the imaginary scale between absolutely aggressive and absolutely passive play neither is ideal, it's best to play conservatively until you have a strong awareness of where players are moving and looking and in the interim use caution. As a theoretical and ideal matter, you are uniformly alert and have a perfect understanding of who and where--in reality, the pace and scope of combat outstrips not only your ability to imagine a coherently aggressive response but your team mates. As a practical matter, your real weapon is mobility and the ability to launch and survive ambushes in imperfect circumstances. Your physical weapons and attachments are all secondary to this goal and it is in these moments where armor creates opportunities by denying deaths. All metastrategy and specific stratagem, if it is to be successful, is fundamentally opportunistic and relatively conservative, moving between the two extremes of absolute offense and passivity rather than outwardly aggressive as you suggest. Your three examples are misleading too in that they don't reflect the complexity of real circumstances. The question as always returns to "What do you know?" and colors a large part of the reasoning for armor. Its entirely possible that he sees you and instead of firing, anticipating you in cover, will not shoot and spot you for someone else and since you have no idea you've been spotted, are now dead or going to be dead soon. Alternatively, its not difficult to persuade someone to give chase to you and leverage your armor against their overconfidence in an easy kill. The reality is you know less rather than more than you often aspire to even with a brilliant team and placement, its very common to misjudge and make mistakes even when it seems you have the circumstances in your favor.
|
|
|
Post by onikage on Oct 2, 2010 23:55:40 GMT -5
Cute ad homs. I'm flattered by how well you know me. I didn't make an ad hominem argument. If I were to say "You have not played the game against good players, therefore we can conclude that your beliefs are foolish and misguided", that's an ad hominem. If I say "Your beliefs are foolish and misguided, therefore we can conclude you have not played against good players", that's simply reasonable conjecture. If you're going to use a term, make an effort to learn what it means. This is emblematic of your style of discourse. You make superficially plausible arguments, wrap them in unnecessary verbiage, and ignore the fact that they don't conform to reality. In fact, the examples I gave reflect perfectly the absolute simplicity of the vast majority of interactions in BC2. Someone sees someone else, they shoot, that person dies. It all happens in less than a second. That's assuming they can shoot straight, of course, which is why one's perceptions of game dynamics change dramatically based on the level of competition in which one is participating, hence the conclusions about your frame of reference which you incorrectly construed as an ad hominem attack.
|
|
|
Post by Protolisk on Oct 3, 2010 0:12:25 GMT -5
This is somewhat similar to the Juggernaut vs Stopping power arguments. Stopping Power wins in Cod but it may be different in BC2.
Is raraavis trying to say that BC2 is a unpredictable game so therefore Armour is more important as it allows you to minimise how many times people get the "jump" on you?
I think that the decision is situational, if you have more of a tactical loitering approach then Magnum would be better as it allows you to kill people faster and you should have cover to hide behind if you're tactical loitering.
In this case , CQC, it depends on how aware you are of the enemy's position. If you know where they are and can successfully fire first then Magnum would be more beneficial. If however you don't know their position and you need to charge in, maybe to take over a point. Armour would be more of a benefit as you don't know when you're going to be shot at.
^this
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 3, 2010 0:45:50 GMT -5
I didn't make an ad hominem argument. Very true, you've made three in a space of two posts. Even if I dismiss the first one, the second two confirm the unambiguous hostility to the speaker rather than the idea. While you're correct that on the surface nothing is amiss, the tone and connotation is overtly pejorative and confrontational and its plain to see. You can claim you're dispassionate much as I could write "Onikage is the most wise," to mean something other than the surface meaning. As for verbiage, I disagree. You're describing a concrete scenario, I'm describing how motive and player psychology alters what seems to be a simple calculus, hence the distinction between strategy and stratagem earlier and the frequent qualifications. As for my points being preposterous and sophistic I suspect we're still misunderstanding each other. Strategy as a concept, whether articulated by Chinese philosophy, rational choice and materialist theory or any of the subsets of economic and political decision making, all agree fundamentally that success means the ability to curb or eliminate risks as efficiently and consciously as possible.
|
|
|
Post by onikage on Oct 3, 2010 1:56:25 GMT -5
No, no. You don't understand. An "ad hominem", originally "argumentum ad hominem", means to dismiss what someone is saying based on their personal traits. It does NOT mean drawing conclusions about someone's personal traits based on their arguments. Even if I express hostility towards you personally without in any way addressing your ideas, that's still not an ad hominem. In order to be using an ad hominem argument, I must dismiss your arguments because of your personal traits, not disparage your person because of your arguments. Example: Larry tells John he endorses Obama's healthcare proposals. John tells Larry that the plan is fiscally irresponsible, that he's a retarded Foxtrot to endorse such a policy, and that he hopes he dies in a fire. John goes on to insult Larry's mother and imply that she may have fornicated with a goat in order to conceive Larry. That is not an ad hominem. John is drawing conclusions about Larry's character based on Larry's opinions. Example: Bob tells David that reducing agricultural subsidies would be bad for the economy. David points out that Bob doesn't balance his checkbook, and so nobody can trust his opinion on financial matters. That is an ad hominem. David is drawing conclusions about Bob's opinions based on Bob's character. It's not an irrelevant distinction. An actual ad hominem is a logical fallacy. If someone's argument rests on an ad hominem, it is faulty. What you're complaining of is not a logical error (or at least not the one you're using the name of), but simply an insult. As far as that goes, you're right. I've been unnecessarily hostile. Sorry. success means the ability to curb or eliminate risks as efficiently and consciously as possible. Of course. Killing your opponents as quickly as possible is the best way to eliminate risks in this game. In a game like chess, one can favor defense over offense. One can create defensive formations of pieces, prevent moves which would allow one's opponent to create threats, and so on. BC2 is a comparatively simple game, and more importantly, it features no defensive countermeasures. I cannot anticipate my opponents bullets and block them. The only way to stop an opponents offense is to kill them. Retreating to cover merely delays your death, as there are multiple ways to strike an opponent behind cover. It also gives your opponent a wide field of control, while limiting your ability to move or present threats. Furthermore, killing an opponent eliminates a threat to the entire team. Magnum ammo protects everyone who could be fired on by the opponent. Body armor just protects you. I prefer to look at concrete scenarios, but even in the abstract offense trumps defense in BC2.
|
|
|
Post by zany on Oct 3, 2010 11:24:03 GMT -5
Since you can't take marksman with shotguns... Magnum ammo. awareness fail by me. never noticed you cant use marksman with shotis lol @ the 2 dudes, no need to fight, as Den said "Magnum ammo suits everything best"
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 3, 2010 15:36:55 GMT -5
In order to be using an ad hominem argument, I must dismiss your arguments because of your personal traits, not disparage your person because of your arguments. The effect is the same it's just a matter of degree how intense the nature of attack is, prejudicing your conclusions. Despite your best attempts to choose the most narrow, self-serving definition of an ad hom, the language is transparent. You suggest consistently that I am irrational and inexperienced even as you try to distance yourself from having ever attacked me ("That's assuming they can shoot straight..."). You're not the first to projecting irrationality or otherness on others though. Personal attacks and insults are not finite or accidents but a reflection of a broad interpretive and cultural style and as a result are often subtly arraigned to the speaker as strictly objective especially in this case as you took great care to emphasize and repeat them.
|
|
|
Post by onikage on Oct 4, 2010 0:55:36 GMT -5
There's really no point in discussing this further. I would go so far as to say there's no point in discussing anything with you at all. Your arguments are sophistic and display a lack of understanding or even interest in logical argument. Your style of expression is comical in its pretentiousness. It's a way of writing which appears to be calculated to convince its reader that the writer is knowledgeable and intelligent, an intent which is betrayed by how frequently you misuse words, and how elementary your errors of logic are. Despite your best attempts to choose the most narrow, self-serving definition of an ad hom, the language is transparent. No, actually that's not a "narrow" definition, it's just the definition. You used a term you didn't really understand, and you used it incorrectly. But I'm sure you won't do that again, right? Personal attacks and insults are not finite Oh? Personal attacks are infinite, then? Not really clear on the meaning of that word either, I take it. Ok. Go on. You're not the first to projecting irrationality or otherness on others though. Ok, I'm going to ignore the error of syntax there and assume you meant to say "project", not "projecting". What I will not ignore, however, is your complete misuse of the word project. Projection is when someone sees another person as possessing traits which they believe consciously or subconsciously that they possess themselves. What you said essentially is that I'm accusing you of being irrational because I secretly believe that I'm irrational, and I see you as being "other" because I see myself as being "other". Given that "otherness" is a concept which exists in duality with "self", the idea of projecting otherness is nonsensical. Again, this is what happens when you use words you don't know. Words do not mean whatever you happen to want them to mean at the moment. Let's continue the parade of ignorance, shall we? often subtly arraigned to the speaker as strictly objective especially in this case as you took great care to emphasize and repeat them. You're using arraigned incorrectly. Arraigned in this context would mean "accused". "Accused to the speaker as strictly objective"? That doesn't make any sense. What you probably meant to say is "often subtly presented as strictly objective". Again, that's an easy mistake to make if you're using words you don't know. I'm sorry, it's impossible for me to take anyone so ridiculous seriously. I want to stress that it's not because of some a priori prejudice against you that I feel this way. It's because of your behavior. I think you're irrational because you make irrational arguments and fail to respond to rational ones. I think you're stupid because you constantly misuse words. I think you're a fool for trying to use so many unnecessarily obscure terms when you clearly don't know what they mean. I think you're either inexperienced or too stupid to learn from experience because you express opinions which are either not based on experience in the game or based on misinterpreted experience. I don't think your opinions are wrong because I hate you and I'm prejudiced against your opinions. I think your opinions are wrong because they're really, really stupid.
|
|
|
Post by raraavis on Oct 4, 2010 13:22:35 GMT -5
I explained the finite line simply but you chose to quote only half of it and oversimplify the idea of an argumentative ethos as sophistic.
As for the idea of narrow definitions, that too is nothing radical. Surely you agree a thing can represent or reflect another in a qualitatively pronounced way or a vague way?
Projecting otherness is hardly nonsensical, there is a significant theoretical and historical literature to it starting with Plato rewriting Socrates if you like and crystallizing in the era of colonialism. But it is not strictly a political phenomenon. One could easily say that that in the absence of skepticism and philosophical inquiry, projection and opinion replace knowledge as the basis of what is knowable. That fact is on display here.
Your description of projection is equally shallow. Selfhood is a rich literary area negotiating many internal contradictions that ground the presumption of a thing called the self. Additionally it often relates to reconciling a schism between two or more contrary external elements or even parallel contradictions at once, including the tension between abstract knowledge and experience.
You are right though, I meant arrange instead of arraign.
|
|