Ok well i was gonna write a proper post about some of my observations regarding the recent TU bloom study, but i think im done writing walls on this website only to have thecabal pop in and call me a scrub or whatever, so heres the shorthand i have saved on my computer:
To begin i have some reservations about a sample size of only 25, 100 or more each would probably have been better to smooth out the statistical noise, but lets press on.
100% spam 5 shot (the worst kind of spam kill, the kind that makes people rage) wins 9/25 times, this was the problem from day 1, should always have been much lower.
pace wins 28%, not good enough
spam/pace time difference: 2.08 vs 2.2, decent significant difference gameplay wise
85% spam 5 shot (worst kind) wins 15/25 times, almost double!! 5 shot spam now happens much more often due to tighter reticle. This is the fatal flaw in the TU imo.
pace wins 40%, an improvement of 12% but probably not a very noticable one in the field, actually statistically closer to the “coin flip” everyone complains about… and spam still wins over 50% of the time!
spam/pace time difference: 1.98 vs 1.94, negigable IE spamming and pacing almost identical now, spammers are now pacers.
Better, but 5 shot spam (the worst kind) wins twice as often with 85% in this data set (6 times vs 3 times)
85% 5 shot spam won 3/25 tims even at long range, only 1/25 times with 100%
100% pace kill time = 2.48 vs 85% pace kill time = 2.05, nearly a half second speedup in kill time at long range…makes BTB a nightmare as predicted!
Author fails to note that in a real game you can easily crouch long range to make the gun ZB, rendering the spam vs pace debate totally moot!
both have 88% pace win, illustrates that the spam/vs pace debate is mainly confined to short range, where weve already observed that 5 shot spam is almost doubled by the TU.
"At short range at 100% bloom, spamming will win a high percentage of the time, but 85% bloom reduces the average margin time of a spammed win to almost nothing, resulting in more paced wins [not many more] and a significant improvement over 100% bloom [not really that significant, meanwhile the price that is paid for this marginal improvement is that difference between spamming and pacing has been almost completely destroyed, well done.]
Author concludes for short range “Also, 85% bloom reduced the Margin of Win of spamming from 0.178 seconds to just 0.036 seconds, further emphasizing the decreased advantage spamming has at close range in 85% bloom.” and then for medium range; “Also, 85% bloom slightly increased the Margin of Win of pacing, further emphasizing the increased advantage of pacing at medium range in 85% bloom.” Both increased and decreased “margin of win” cannot both be an advantage, so which is it? Unless you mean both spamming advantage decreased AND pacing advantage increased, IE the two mechanisms have been moved so close together that they are basically the same now which is not a good thing, which is what ive already concluded. As far as im concerned now all spammers have been made into pacers, and pacing for the headshot will probably get you killed at short range (the most important range for this debate as discovered above), seeing as theres almost no cadence difference between the two now and bullet magnetism is still quite heavy and spammer friendly.
I dont regard this as an improvement.
And then of course there is the whole obiviating the rest of the sandbox argument, which has been expanded upon elsewhere to broad agreement and which i dont really see a counterpoint to.
But thats kind of a different issue so ill leave it there.
There it is, have at it sycophants.