Now you’re saying a group of indicators are equal, that it doesn’t matter which one you pick.
stated u still need to actually PLAY with the ppl before making a definite judgement on 1s skill. thank u.
And had you read the thread then it’s already said that clan leaders don’t have time for that. So that was never an option.
I genuinely wonder how high the K/D ratios of the best xp/hour people are. I am not entirely convinced that
they will be even remotely close to those of the best killers.
Its also possible that high K/D ratio people are very good team and objective players as well. I would drop the whole scenario, as its way too much speculation.
No genius. It’s based off the logical conclusion that I cannot know, with certainty, that there will be an enemy around the corner. I don’t have the gift of foresight. Not knowing is not the same as assuming I won’t.
Try again.
you act like when doing these objectives, that your going to be free to just walk right in and do what you please. to say you won’t ever meet resistance is WRONG on your part, your going to partake in a gunfight sooner or later and dying doesn’t help you get anything done.
See previous answer, genius. You did go to primary school, right?
Again, I could sit in the home base and not die. It breaks your dichotomy quite nicely…and maybe I’ll do just that if I meet you online.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;292715]I genuinely wonder how high the K/D ratios of the best xp/hour people are. I am not entirely convinced that
they will be even remotely close to those of the best killers.
Its also possible that high K/D ratio people are very good team and objective players as well. I would drop the whole scenario, as its way too much speculation.[/QUOTE]
You mean the xp/min of the best k/ders? Like I said, I’m positive there will be a bigger disparity with the k/d group than with the x/min group. And it’s not something that can’t be found out with some decent statistic tracking.
And the whole thing will be even more clear in W:ET and ETQW as the kills reward more xp.
[QUOTE=Bodo Fraggins;290730]paragraphs plz … wall of text is hurt my brain
K/DR is included in Brink … it will be in your stats … so you can rate you success to your hearts content
It just isn’t included in the scoreboard or after match scoreboard[/QUOTE]
There still is, **** ME, i got gamer’s OCD with that ****, now I’ll be to busy trying to make it look like I don’t suck to enjoy the awsome objectiveness to the game
[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;292692]And what if the objective is to spot a mine? Or revive a teammate? Can you be absolutely sure that an enemy will come along?
The answer is No. Ergo, your assertion of the absolute dichotomy is wrong because you cannot be reasonably certain that you will die if you do not kill. You could, in effect, stand in your home base the entire game and never die. You’re not killing…but you’re not dying either.
Try again, this time with more education.
Actually, it’s logic and reason. You know, that thing you got rid of when you decided to be a moron?[/QUOTE]
Learn a new word dude, maybe you should touch up on your vocabulary instead of saying “ergo” and “dichotomy” every other sentence. your the one taking what I’m saying squarely out of context.
Your over here talking about the most minor objective in the game, when I’m talking about the primary ones that actually help you win. To say you won’t meet resistance doing these objectives that actually make you win is absolutely wrong and if you can’t defend/attack properly which requires killing, then your dying and doing nothing for your team. So you go ahead and run around a spot mines dip****.
in ETQW?
you got the most xp out of whoring vehicles, in particular flyers, especially before the nerfs. I could easily get 400 xp per round as anansi just by targeting vehicles and deployables.
Had i only focused on some deployables in the back, i would be wasting the lethal potential of anansi.
“if your not killing, your dying.” – BravoMike.
Would you like some more rope to hang yourself further? The above quote from Mike is known as an absolute dichotomy. It is not an assertion, it is going off of his own words.
Try again, but think before you type.
I would love you to show me an argument outside a philosophical environment that has all the logical steps laid out, one by one.
Preferably in politics.
Congratulations. You have nothing to deconstruct my rebuttal with so now you’re strawmanning. Logic is not tied to a “philosophical environment”. Indeed, I hate philosophy.
I actually doubt that any such discussion exists, just like a mathematical theorem is not bothering to lay out all the previous knowledge defining mathematics, until the basic math assumptions.
Are you that kid who sits in front of class going, “Well, you haven’t actually proven the Pythagorean theorem yet”?
Try a better argument next time than hanging yourself and going off topic. It makes you look like a temper-tantrum throwing six year old.
Mike created a False Dichotomy. There’s no reason to defend him unless you think it makes you look smart in some way. It doesn’t.
Ad hominem. Oh dear. You have to look that one up, don’t you?
No, everything is in context. You made the dichotomy, I told you that you’re wrong. It’s all in the thread. Go check it out.
[quote=BRAVOMIKE;292729]Blah blah, I can’t make a decent argument, blah blah[/QUOTE]
All I can say to you at this point is “Cry Moar”. I’ve shown you that you can not kill and not die at the same time. Shocking, I know but it is very possible.
EDIT: You know, I didn’t even use ergo in my last post to you. I think someone is running out of comebacks…
[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;292733]“if your not killing, your dying.” – BravoMike.
Would you like some more rope to hang yourself further? The above quote from Mike is known as an absolute dichotomy. It is not an assertion, it is going off of his own words. [/quote]
When i say:
“it rains outside” do i make a logical statement about the atmosphere as a whole, or do i try to approximate the weather i can perceive directly? Am I wrong to state that ‘it rains outside’ when in fact, its only a cloud passing nearby for 5 minutes?
Logic is necessarily reductive, and alone an insufficient tool to have any meaningful discussion about anything else except logic itself.
The above quote is known as an absolute dichotomy only when its examined as a statement completely detached from everything else.
In any other context, words carry meanings beyond their direct semantical worth.
And so ‘if youre not killing, youre dying’ is probably an approximation of most ‘not killing - dying’ states, presumably based on previous W:ET or ETQW experience.
That is how i understood it, and that is how it carried meaning beyond the mere words it was comprised of.
If you refuse to think more holistically, you might find yourself quite alone.
Try again, but think before you type.
Whats with the ad hominem attack?
Where did I mention my post count? Where did I say I have seniority? I wrote neither, and implied neither. Intentionally, I might add. It was a valid question over your claim to represent a community you know next to nothing about.
You’ve been here two hours, and you know all of the social mores and hierarchy of the forum? You know what is considered acceptable and what isn’t?? I hope that you are a social anthropologist because you are the bestest EVER then. Your talents are wasted if you aren’t out there, finding culture with your eyes.
The “topic” is pointless argument between two sides that aren’t willing to concede anything about a meaningless statistic that has no causative value for anyone. It is argument for argument’s sake and not a very good one.
Also, I don’t reside on people’s nuts. It’s awkward.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;292740]When i say:
“it rains outside” do i make a logical statement about the atmosphere as a whole, or do i try to approximate the weather i can perceive directly? Am I wrong to state that ‘it rains outside’ when in fact, its only a cloud passing nearby for 5 minutes?[/quote]
The problem with that analogy is that it’s not a false dichotomy. It is true that, sometimes, it rains outside. However, if you had said, “If it’s not raining, then it’s sunny out,” then you’ve made a false dichotomy because it is entirely possible that it could be cloudy, or even nighttime.
Again, think before you type.
Logic is necessarily reductive, and alone an insufficient tool to have any meaningful discussion about anything else except logic itself.
I agree with the latter…which is why we’re talking about Mike’s false dichotomy and not the idea of logic. Im simply claiming that you cannot, logically, infer what Mike has been saying. It just isn’t the case. Yet, you still would rather attack me than the actual issue.
The above quote is known as an absolute dichotomy only when its examined as a statement completely detached from everything else.
No, it’s not. Even attached to everything else, it’s still a false dichotomy that Mike is (still) perpetuating.
In any other context, words carry meanings beyond their direct semantical worth.
Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t even matter what YOU think he intended. If you followed the discussion you’d know that he meant the dichotomy as is as he’s reaffirmed it several times.
That is how i understood it, and that is how it carried meaning beyond the mere words it was comprised of.
Thankfully, again, it doesn’t matter if it’s just how you perceive it. It’s simply to be examined how it is. And it is false.
[quoteIf you refuse to think more holistically, you might find yourself quite alone.?[/QUOTE]
And if you refuse to think before you type, then you’re never going to be able to think critically. Stop the rhetorical circles and actually deal with the issue. Unlike others, I don’t care about your strawman arguments; I stick with the issue.
How can you demonstrate beyond all doubt that a particular state of atmosphere is rain, and another is ‘not-rain’?
You demand absolutes. And their very existence can be put to question.
Again, think before you type.
I am not gonna raise to such a cheap provo. The rest is quite fun and im enjoying myself, but I’d appreciate more sophisticated attempts.
I agree with the latter…which is why we’re talking about Mike’s false dichotomy and not the idea of logic. Im simply claiming that you cannot, logically, infer what Mike has been saying. It just isn’t the case. Yet, you still would rather attack me than the actual issue.
I do not see a single statement of mine which was directed at you. I would love to see you quote one, should you be so kind.
EDIT:
oh actually i did once, i said that ‘it is youre assertion and your argument falls on its head’.
I apologise. I should have specified more clearly that its only what i think.
No, it’s not. Even attached to everything else, it’s still a false dichotomy that Mike is (still) perpetuating.
I am pretty sure, that Mike would grant you that if should you join an empty server, than the statement ‘if your not killing, youre dying’ would be most likely false. I fail to see, how in any way does it undermine the meaning of Mike’s argument.
Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t even matter what YOU think he intended. If you followed the discussion you’d know that he meant the dichotomy as is as he’s reaffirmed it several times.
I can only care about what I think. And I do not see Mike’s statement as an assertion of absolute truth about all possible Brink ‘kiling/dying’ scenarios.
Thankfully, again, it doesn’t matter if it’s just how you perceive it. It’s simply to be examined how it is. And it is false.
That is what you assert. And what i disagree with. I can see how it is a false dichotomy under youre assumptions. But I am working under different assumptions.
And if you refuse to think before you type, then you’re never going to be able to think critically. Stop the rhetorical circles and actually deal with the issue. Unlike others, I don’t care about your strawman arguments;
Which is why, I happily do think before I type. I can guarantee you of that. It would be very hard to demonstrate how is it possible to type without thinking.
I cannot even begin to ‘not think’ how.
[quote]I stick with the issue.
clearly.
Its been fun, but im afraid im done.
Enjoy the ‘non-rain’ sun(ny)day !
Once again, I’m talking about primary objectives that help you win and the resistance you will encounter when doing them. Not minor ones like defusing mines, or reviving people. Your right, camping @ home base then theres a good chance you won’t die due to having base turrets, but thats a unpractical and illogical point to disprove my “if your not killing, your dying” quote. That’s all you have on me, you showed that my quote can be disproven if you camp @ home base. Congrats.
All you proved to this whole thread is that you can’t be wrong, you take things out of context, and that your a troll.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;292732]in ETQW?
you got the most xp out of whoring vehicles, in particular flyers, especially before the nerfs. I could easily get 400 xp per round as anansi just by targeting vehicles and deployables.
Had i only focused on some deployables in the back, i would be wasting the lethal potential of anansi.[/QUOTE]
By golly that’s a lot of time you made them waste putting down deployabless. No artillery, no turrets and radar. Good job man!
compared to what anansi can do to vehicles and people its pretty sad.
I mean its very nice, if thats the best youre gonna get out of an anansi. But that flyer is capable of so much more.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;292761]How can you demonstrate beyond all doubt that a particular state of atmosphere is rain, and another is ‘not-rain’?
You demand absolutes. And their very existence can be put to question.[/quote]
Seeing as how the rest of your argument falls upon this idea of an imaginary antithesis, I’ll deal with this and allow you to continue not actually dealing with my premises in favor of more rhetorical circles and strawmen that are nothing about what I said.
The issue is not whether or not “rain…is rain,” but rather as to whether or not rain falls outside, as with your analogy. By definition of outside and inside, rain must fall outside. Your statement does not say that it is, will, or has, but simply that it can only fall outside. There’s nothing to disagree with there. However, if you say if it is not raining, then it is sunny, are two different absolutes that form a false dichotomy as not only can it be raining and sunny but it can also be just dark outside.
Essentially, when you bring up the null, you’re arguing into that very special realm of metaphysics or the “what is it?” question of philosophy. I imagine it’s your “get out of jail free card” because you think no one is smart enough to defeat it.
From a philospophical standpoint, you cannot reasonably claim that having no rain is “not rain”, however by that same standpoint, you cannot rationally conclude that Mike’s statement is an absolute either, which means it’s a false dichotomy.
However, I’m thankfully not a philosopher and I would rather live life by empirical data and reason combined. The reason we can say something is ‘not rain’ is because we define ‘rain’ in a certain way, and anything that rain is not can be referred to as ‘not rain’. Therefore, if it is not raining, then it is not raining. We can measure if there is rain, and if there is none, we can conlude it is ‘not rain.’
The same hold true for Mike’s dichotomy. I can sit in the home base and not die while simultaneously not kill. That gives us evidence -both empirical and rational - against the dichotomy.
I’d continue with the rest, but I’m not going to write a dissertation for something you clearly just feel like being a troll about.
All objectives help your team win.
No, it’s not. You made an absolute and false dichotomy. It’s a completely practical and logical point to disprove a logical fallacy. Not only that, but it’s a strategy other games have used for a damn long time (such as in Blacklight: Tango Down).
I’ve given you the entire layout and there are more possibilities than I can list. You could be running, jumping, shooting, healing, buffing and any list of things that don’t involve dying.
It is not simply, if you don’t kill, you die. It’s entirely possible to run around the entire map like a tosser, chanting for Kthulu to come and squash the non-believers and not die once.
All you’re doing is simply folding your arms and saying, “nuh uh” whenever someone tells you that you’re wrong.
Grow up, kid.
Wooo eee. I’ve missed a lot in the past 10 hours. Where to even start!
Numbzzz yes I will continue my conversation with you. People who go 50+ kills and no deaths in a sabo game are camping a spawn and not doing the objectives. If the other team is really that bad, you can take the first objective in less than 2 minutes then the main base in less than 3. And that’s being generous to the bad team and saying they’ve repelled you once or twice throughout the game. Some quick games against bad teams the best player on our team could barely get 15-20. If you’re in the 50s, you’re spawn camping and not doing objectives. Which is what I refer to as KDR Whoring. Correct me if I’m wrong though, please.
Also, to the people who say the people who argue KDR isn’t as important are normally those subpar players. Well, here’s my MAG profile
KDR isn’t crazy, it’s at 1.3, but I spent a lot of time doing objectives. I had people in my clan who were sub 1.0, because they would cover an objective that wasn’t being heavily attacked and would not complain about it. They would drive the vehicle while others used the turrets. They would revive players that were better than them and die trying sometimes, to help the team more. Those players I valued, and we won considerable amounts of games because of them. In my experience, it’s 10x easier to find someone who’s good at shooting than it is to find someone willing to let their stats suffer to help the team succeed.
Also, I wasn’t a lower tier player. 15% of games I played in I was the MVP. Best player, out of the 128/256 players on the map. And, I can thank my teammates for that. Revives, holding objectives, staying together. They weren’t the elitest players, but they filled roles and communicated and did what I asked them to do. Excellent team players.
If you want to rule out people automatically because of a sub 1.00 KDR, it’s your loss. And it’s anyone else’s right to say it makes no sense in an objective based game to base something on KDR. Even kills per minute in an objective based game isn’t a good indicator. Xp/min can be somewhat indicative of skill, but I will always prefer playing 3-4 games with the person, giving them objectives, seeing what they do. See how they communicate and get a long with the other clan members. Notice if they’re staring at the ceiling spinning in circles or doing what their class was meant to do. KDR is such a shallow indicator of a players skill it’s sickening.
Xp/min can be somewhat indicative of skill, but I will always prefer playing 3-4 games with the person,
It’s not fair to compare these two, xp/min doesn’t cost you any effort to asses.