There's a 3rd option: tweak the blifle further, then add/dismiss it (unless 'don't' includes 'first continue to balance').
I'd assume that continues in either case. If it would change anything notably, the decision could easily be switched to suit the new gun.
Thank god we're not! Still, remember where we are coming from here (I feel like some of our discussions stem from loosing sight of the original response): you saying "If you're going to kill armored targets, you should get a Testament" which to me sounds like asserting it's in-game effectiveness based solely on testing, and comparing that to the supposed in-game effectiveness of something that also hasn't been used before in the field, hell, that doesn't even really exist yet and is subject to change! Even outside of academics, wording is rather important, wouldn't you say?
I... don't see why that statement is inaccurate? The testament is more likely to be effective, therefore you should choose it.
Arguably, some amount of people should choose the inferior weapon, to see how much its power varied from the tests, but for any individual that's the worse choice.
Also, that example isn't exactly super relevant here (yes, joke response, I know). I agree (and never denied, as far as I know?) that, if from tests A has better AP than B, then there's a good chance of A still having better AP than B after sufficient field use. But that's it, it has a higher chance. Saying it like it's a certain thing pushes discourse in a certain direction, or might mean we argue on a basis of assumptions that might turn out all wrong, wasting a lot of time and effort, and maybe leading to wrong conclusions and thus, wrong decisions.
It's... it
is a certain thing that choice A is the better choice, because given no other information, you're more likely to end up in a better situation if you choose A.
Yes, assumptions could turn out wrong. If we argued on the basis that B is a better choice, the assumptions that support it are more likely to be wrong.... you can't avoid that risk, but you can mitigate it...
I feel like I'm missing something. I don't understand what you're saying, at all. Are you saying that arguing about the balance of weapons which could vary drastically is pointless, because we have to assume too much? That... I can't really argue against that.
Let's look at the rebalanced blifle now (for the record, I thought the original blifle could also kill/cripple someone in Milnoplate equivalent, but there was a miscommunication there I suspect). Still much worse ammo than testament of course, but now should be able to kill armored targets quicker or more reliably on a single shot (vs single volley). Has some extra features, balances against the fact that next to AP, a testament is probably better against crowds of unarmored targets (even if a single shard overpenetrates, a volley of 3 should be lethal, and the overpenetration means you might hit multiple targets if packed close enough).
Actually, blifle has better ammo economy against milnoplated enemies. It can kill or disable with one shot, whereas testament likely requires two or three 9-volleys. Blifle has ten shots, testament has twenty 9-volleys. Arguably, for people with high con skill, who can get headshots easily, the testament is slightly better because every shot is one of the rare lucky ones.
So yeah, the blifle in its current state is good, as long as you're fighting milnoplated foes. The testament is best for lightly armored enemies, and the Spektr is best for everyone else, especially if it gets that discount which I disagree with.
I'm sorry, that's just how I try to keep these things light and fun, with the occasional joke or silly response. If you really want, say so, and I'll try (no promises though) to cut down on them.
I believe I've already asked you not to, a multitude of times. Yes, I'd like you to try and not keep the discussion light and fun, at least when talking to me, because it makes you seem dishonest and dismissive.
Although, I know how difficult it is to intentionally alter your speech patterns. If you're incapable of it, I won't blame you; I'll just continue being irrationally irritated.
Also, I find it interesting you say what your response would be, then say you think that is false. Does that imply you knowingly use arguments you think are incorrect, just to 'win' an argument? Or just that you realized the potential flaws in your own gut response? Or is it just a way to speed up the discussion?
I tried to think of what I'd say if I were on the other side. I then tried to think of why it was wrong. Then I swapped again, countering my counter with my best guess of what my opinion would be, and when I swapped back I couldn't counter
that with anything other than "we have different ideas about what would exist, or their relative values."
And then I posted it, so that we could avoid going down that route.
Note that I'm not great at arguing against myself, because it's kinda hard to have a different opinion from the one you actually have.
I do, but good intentions alone don't exactly ensure results, now do they? As such, even if I give advise with the fullest intent of being helpful and truthful, that doesn't mean I can't be laughably wrong, so stay skeptic!
...I was ribbing you for jokingly giving bad advice. You said I shouldn't underestimate your stupidity. But I will (try), because if you end up being stupider than I expected, that can only be good for me.
Yes, they sound promising, but we'll have to wait and see what they cost. If it's too expensive, it'll severely cut down on what we can use it for in terms of player equipment (also other uses, of course, but less perhaps).
Sure, but that's true of everything. Plus, I think this is the type of thing which has more uses than PW intended, so he'll probably set the cost low.
Until you and the other council people advise him to do the opposite, I guess, but eh. I stopped being manipulative awhile ago.
Author
Topic: Hephaestus OOC (Read 166667 times)