Observations on the TTL dmr study

Games Other Halo
#1

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.

CLOSE RANGE

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.

MEDIUM RANGE

Better, but 5 shot spam (the worst kind) wins twice as often with 85% in this data set (6 times vs 3 times)

LONG RANGE

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.

CONCLUSION

"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.

#2

You know what would be a good idea for all playlists? Zero bloom, as it has no randomness, ergo the person who shoots better always wins, something that a gametype with bloom miserably fails at.

#3

Where’s the graphs, videos or other related evidence to support your claims (not just from the said article, your own test results)? . Otherwise, we just off your word and that is just not good enough. I am just saying it helps to how you came out with the numbers and what not.

It’s clear you are attempting to prove the article wrong and it’s fine using it as a basis of proving it wrong. However, you really should do tests you’re self because i suspect you are just trying to prove the article wrong to paint the TU as something dumb and unneeded (like Pre TU Bloom settings were any better?). Not sure what this will change and i am probably just being negative (chances are you already blocked my posts), so carry on if you must.

Not sure how much Squad Slayer you play but when i spam, i tend to miss more at medium to long range on 85 bloom. Spamming isn’t rewarded; pacing is at least in my own experience. Also 85 gametypes, players still utilize the other weapons in the sandbox (that’s including PP and Needler). You act as though this was ZB and if it was, you’d be right but we’re talking about 85 bloom. The DMR/NR can still be beaten at close range (AR, PP’R and Plasma Rifle’s niche) and doesn’t ruin the already unbalanced sandbox.

#4

Umm, i dont need my own data because im just posting what i see from hoovaloovs own data set, using his numbers to back up my points. I dont think you actually read a word of the OP.

#5

This would have been better in the thread that discussed this.

#6

These are the stats from the article.

Close Range 100%- Pacing Won 7/25 (28%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 10/25 (40%) times.
Medium Range 100%- Pacing Won 16/25 (64%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 19/25 (76%) times.
Long Range 100%- Pacing Won 21/25 (84%) times. 85%- pacing won 20/25 (80%) times.

The only “insignificant” change is the long range, which was only a difference of 4%, and falls under the 5% margin of error. You can argue that kill times go down in 85% bloom, but you cannot argue that pacing becomes less effective when these stats show this.

#7

Depends what you define as “the spam problem”. I always regarded it as pacing perfectly aimed shots at someone short range but them getting the kill with 5 spammed shots including the last fluky headshot. Thats what makes people throw their controllers at the wall. The data says this now happens almost twice as often at close range with 85% because there’s barely any difference between them anymore.

If you get killed while pacing because your opponent has the time to put 8+ spammed shots into you to kill you with a bodyshot like a lot of hoovaloovs data suggests then thats not blooms fault, you just tried to be super accurate by pacing and you failed. I think thats where those numbers you quoted come from.

Hmm actually if im right, then i might have uncovered a flaw in the entire premise of the study which would also affect the conclusion, namely the definition of the spam problem. Not that im disrespecting his efforts, its been great to read some empirical evidence on the subject for once.

This isnt the only bad thing about it too, there is other stuff in the OP.

#8

> Depends what you define as “the spam problem”. I always regarded it as pacing perfectly aimed shots at someone short range but them getting the kill with 5 spammed shots including the last fluky headshot. Thats what makes people throw their controllers at the wall. The data says this now happens almost twice as often at close range with 85% because there’s barely any difference between them anymore.
>
> If you get killed while pacing because your opponent has the time to put 8+ spammed shots into you to kill you with a bodyshot like a lot of hoovaloovs data suggests then thats not blooms fault, you just tried to be super accurate by pacing and you failed. I think thats where those numbers you quoted come from.
>
> Hmm actually if im right, then i might have uncovered a flaw in the entire premise of the study which would also affect the conclusion, namely the definition of the spam problem. Not that im disrespecting his efforts, its been great to read some empirical evidence on the subject for once.
>
> This isnt the only bad thing about it too, there is other stuff in the OP.

You Do not understand. The problem is the optimal rate of fire is not pacing on 100%.Good players realized they have to fire at least a little faster than pacing to compete. That is counter intuitive. There is no debating this.

#9

> This would have been better in the thread that discussed this.

He kinda abandoned ship after a few post in his thread, I even gave it a bump later in the day to bring it to page one.

#10

> These are the stats from the article.
>
> Close Range 100%- Pacing Won 7/25 (28%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 10/25 (40%) times.
> Medium Range 100%- Pacing Won 16/25 (64%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 19/25 (76%) times.
> Long Range 100%- Pacing Won 21/25 (84%) times. 85%- pacing won 20/25 (80%) times.
>
> The only “insignificant” change is the long range, which was only a difference of 4%, and falls under the 5% margin of error. You can argue that kill times go down in 85% bloom, but you cannot argue that pacing becomes less effective when these stats show this.

Just an observation, but if spamming was a problem with the bloom mechanic, then making it 15% more accurate allows the same spammer to now shoot 15% better without changing his pace at all.

I dont think anybody is saying that those that shoot better are not going to be more accurate, but how is reducing bloom going to punish spammers?

#11

> > These are the stats from the article.
> >
> > Close Range 100%- Pacing Won 7/25 (28%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 10/25 (40%) times.
> > Medium Range 100%- Pacing Won 16/25 (64%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 19/25 (76%) times.
> > Long Range 100%- Pacing Won 21/25 (84%) times. 85%- pacing won 20/25 (80%) times.
> >
> > The only “insignificant” change is the long range, which was only a difference of 4%, and falls under the 5% margin of error. You can argue that kill times go down in 85% bloom, but you cannot argue that pacing becomes less effective when these stats show this.
>
> Just an observation, but if spamming was a problem with the bloom mechanic, then making it 15% more accurate allows the same spammer to now shoot 15% better without changing his pace at all.
>
> I dont think anybody is saying that those that shoot better are not going to be more accurate, but how is reducing bloom going to punish spammers?

If pacing wins more spammers are punished more. Obviously.

#12

> > > These are the stats from the article.
> > >
> > > Close Range 100%- Pacing Won 7/25 (28%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 10/25 (40%) times.
> > > Medium Range 100%- Pacing Won 16/25 (64%) times. 85%- Pacing Won 19/25 (76%) times.
> > > Long Range 100%- Pacing Won 21/25 (84%) times. 85%- pacing won 20/25 (80%) times.
> > >
> > > The only “insignificant” change is the long range, which was only a difference of 4%, and falls under the 5% margin of error. You can argue that kill times go down in 85% bloom, but you cannot argue that pacing becomes less effective when these stats show this.
> >
> > Just an observation, but if spamming was a problem with the bloom mechanic, then making it 15% more accurate allows the same spammer to now shoot 15% better without changing his pace at all.
> >
> > I dont think anybody is saying that those that shoot better are not going to be more accurate, but how is reducing bloom going to punish spammers?
>
> If pacing wins more spammers are punished more. Obviously.

It seems to me that the the “problem” has only moved 15% down the scale and that the only way to truly punish “spamming” is to go the other way on the bloom scale.

If they made it 80% bloom, do you think that it would be better than 85%? Would the ideal setting be as close to 0% as they will go?

#13

I thought the problem people had with spammers was that despite the fact that pacing did win majority of the time, they were annoyed at the small chance that made players lose against a spammer. The update seems to lower the spamming victory but still leaves in a chance to win (and the test never tried spamming shields off and pacing the final shot).

I thought even “pro-TU” players wanted spammers to be fully punished with basically no chance of winning.
I thought of a way to do this, headshots can only be achieved once the bloom has reset. Then spammers would lose about 99% of the time.

#14

> I thought the problem people had with spammers was that despite the fact that pacing did win majority of the time, they were annoyed at the small chance that made players lose against a spammer. The update seems to lower the spamming victory but still leaves in a chance to win (and the test never tried spamming shields off and pacing the final shot).
>
> I thought even “pro-TU” players wanted spammers to be fully punished with basically no chance of winning.
> I thought of a way to do this, headshots can only be achieved once the bloom has reset. Then spammers would lose about 99% of the time.

Thats…not bad idea actually. Though on 100 percent bloom, it resets too slowly and some players will opt to spam you to death with body shots and kill you that way. Of course, this could work on 85 bloom, seeing how the reticule resets faster.

Not sure how it would turn out, so many variables to consider.

#15

> You know what would be a good idea for all playlists? Zero bloom, as it has no randomness, ergo the person who shoots better always wins, something that a gametype with bloom miserably fails at.

i agree %150, zero bloom is so brilliant beyond comparison

#16

What 85% bloom does to the DMR makes is function like the CE pistol or similarly the Needle Rifle on 100%. The CE pistol is probably the most “spam happy” “bloomed” weapon in Halo. you have like 90% accuracy when holding the trigger down. Yet for some reason anyone good didn’t “spam” the pistol. Why? Because the speed advantage presented by “spamming” is not worth the reduced accuracy. That is why 85% DMR works. Because the speed advantage of “spamming” no longer outweighs the accuracy advantage of pacing. You guys can do all the studies you want and twist the “Evidence” in every which way, but the bottom line is that pacing is now far more consistent and effective. Yes the “skill” of bloom is now reduced, but to believe that it took any significant skill in the first place shows lack of understanding of the games mechanics and functions. All bloom did was force you to be calm in each situation, and the problem was that even the people who weren’t “Calm”, had a significant chance of beating someone who was. Now in 85% it is easier for both players to be calm, and the calmer player has more of an advantage than they did on 100%. So on 85% it comes far more down to the aiming skill while also reducing the frustration of the giant bloom, allowing for it to be easier to stay calm even in high adrenaline situations, and provides more of a disadvantage to a player who still can’t stay calm even with the reduced bloom.

The gun is now more consistent and allows for aiming skill to prevail more than on 100%. That is that.

#17

> 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.

As mentioned in the Tied The Leader thread, this would have taken a lot more time.

Posted by: SG Noodles - Do I think that there should be a larger data set? Yes, I do, probably at least 300 kills for each range/setting to get a reasonably accurate numbers from which we could draw a solid conclusion.

I definitely agree that more data is better. 25 kills is a small sample size, and it took me quite a bit of time already to analyze the 300 total kills in the test frame by frame, and enter in a spreadsheet. I had originally set my sights on 50 kills, but I’m sure glad I didn’t do that!

> 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!

Explained in the Halo.Bungie.Org thread:

Posted by: FyreWulff - It omits: - crouched shots, where the DMR and NR both have effective zero bloom, and the sandbox goes to total [-Yoink!-]

This test does not conclude anything about sandbox balancing, merely about pacing versus spamming. Crouching reduces bloom (I assume) by an equal amount in both 100% and 85%. Therefore, I would hypothesize that my results would still hold true if I had test crouching. Also, while crouching, the effects of spamming would be harder to see and would lead to a less conclusive test.**

#18

@Fatal Factor

First of all, thank you for sharing your concerns. Hopefully I can answer the questions you have so that you and others can better understand what is going on.

Second, after reading your post, I get the feeling that you haven’t seen any of the three updates made to the study since I first posted it. Halo community members RC Master and uberfoop pointed out I was not using proper mathematics during parts of the analysis.

This means some of the numbers you state below are the result of logical and math errors on my part. However, when I and others re-crunched the numbers, we came up with results that still supported my initial conclusion, but with more solid mathematics supporting it.

Basically, at first I got the right answer for the wrong reason, now I have the right reason as well. If you read through the article now, it is all explained.

I apologize for the confusion, I did not expect to update the article, especially not three times.

Please take the time to read the updates and you will better understand what I’m about to say.

> 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.

I agree, a larger sample size will give us more confidence in the trends we see. However, for each set to have 25 kills, that totals 300 kills to analyze frame by frame. So increasing the set to 100 kills each would total 1200 kills to analyze. That would simply take too long for one person to do.

> CLOSE RANGE
> ___________
>
>
> 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

Your statement “100% spam 5 shot wins 9/25 times” is not correct. Each of these time values I listed is a potential time in a given 1v1 battle.

To help clarify this, here’s an analogy. Picture the 25 paced kill times as a deck of 25 cards, and the 25 spam kill times as a deck of 25 cards. Now you take the spam deck, and I’ll take the pace deck. Then you shuffle your deck, and I’ll shuffle my deck. Next we draw one card from each of our decks. Now we can compare the card we each drew and see who won the battle based on the time written on the card.

So what’s really going on is that out of the 25 cards in the spam deck, 9 of them are 5 shot kills. You have a 9/25 chance of pulling a 5 shot spam kill out of your deck. But you also have a 7/25 chance of pulling a 7 or more shot kill out of the deck.

Does that make sense?

> spam/pace time difference: 2.08 vs 2.2, decent significant difference gameplay wise

This calculation is misleading as I was informed by RC Master, and I apologize for confusing you. All “time difference” calculations should not be considered. I explained this in my updates.

> 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.

Yes, the number of 5 shot spam kills went up, but this does NOT mean spammers win more. Remember our card deck analogy? This only means there are 15 cards in your spam deck with 5 shot kills on them. So your potential chances have increased of a 5 shot kill.

But here’s what you’re not taking into account. My deck of cards with the pacing shots, ALL the kill times on those cards went down. They went down so much that in 85% bloom, whenever the you pull out a 6+ shot card from the spam deck, my 5 shot card from the pace deck will ALWAYS win. In 100% bloom, in order for my pace 5 shot pace card to win, I would have needed you to pull a 7+ shot card. So in 100% bloom, you had 7/25 chance of losing as a spammer. Now in 85% bloom, you have 10/25 chance of losing as a spammer.

In other words, my chances of winning the battle as a pacer went up by about 12%.

> 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!

How noticeable the change is is directly related to the probability of you getting that result in the first place. Let’s imagine a coin with heads and tails. But on the tails side, I glued a lead brick to it. That coin will NEVER land tails up, no matter how many times I flip it. The lead brick means heads 100% of the time.

Now what if I cut a piece off of the brick, but leave most of it stuck to the tails side. I just increased the chances of the coin landing tails, right? But it will still hardly ever land tails up because there’s still a lot of weight glued to the tails side. This example shows the difference an extra 12% can make between 100% heads and 88% heads. It’s not very noticeable because the coin lands heads up most of the time even though you increased your chances 12%.

Now imagine that I glue a bit of wood to the tails side of the coin. The coin still wants to land heads up, but you can imagine it landing tails up sometimes now, but mostly heads. And now when I cut off some of the wood stuck to the coin, improving the chances of tails by 12%, you’ll really start to notice it because the coin is almost evenly weighted again. This example shows the difference an extra 12% can make between 72% heads and 60% heads. It’s pretty noticeable because when you increased your chances by 12%, you’re way more likely to see the extra advantage.

> spam/pace time difference: 1.98 vs 1.94, negigable IE spamming and pacing almost identical now, spammers are now pacers.

Like I said before, we can’t use these time difference calculations, sorry for the confusion, but it’s in the updates.

> MEDIUM RANGE
> ____________
>
> Better, but 5 shot spam (the worst kind) wins twice as often with 85% in this data set (6 times vs 3 times)

Remember the card deck. The spam deck now has more 5 shot cards, yes. But this doesn’t mean spamming wins “twice as often.” All the times in my pace deck are lowered, so instead of me needing you to pull a 7+ shot card for me to win, I only need you to pull a 6+ shot card. So that means in 85% bloom, pacing wins are actually INCREASED compared to 100% bloom.

> LONG RANGE
> __________
>
> 85% 5 shot spam won 3/25 tims even at long range, only 1/25 times with 100%

Remember the card deck. Yes, you have more 5 shot cards in the deck, but my cards have improved as well. In fact, long range, 100% bloom and 85% bloom don’t show any significant change.

(Part 2 of this response below)

#19

(This is part 2 of the response above)

> 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!

Yes, all the kill times are increased in 85% bloom no matter if you pace or spam. The game is faster. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely player preference. I enjoy Reach playing a bit faster.

> 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!

Crouching was not a part of this study. Further testing would be required to make a conclusion on that.

> 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.

Yes, long range is almost the same in 100% and 85% bloom. Yes, 5 shot spam kills are increased in the TU. But that does NOT mean that the chances of spam winning is increased in the TU. Even though the chances of a 5 shot spam kill are higher, the pacer only needs the spammer to pull a 6 shot card or more in order to win, when in 100% bloom, he needed the spammer to pull a 7 shot card. At short and medium range, this actually leads to LESS spamming kills. At long range, it’s pretty much the same as 100% bloom.

> CONCLUSION
> __________
>
> "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.]

At short range, even though spamming will win a majority of the time, the TU reduces that majority. This results in a noticeable increase in paced wins.

The time difference conclusion you wrote is based on an earlier incorrect calculation that I explained in the update.

> 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.

Like I said before, the time difference calculations are not accurate.

If you want to understand what I meant originally, picture a race. At short range, the spammer is way ahead of the pacer. But the TU cuts the lead of the spammer, which is why I said “decreased the advantage of spamming.” At medium range, now the pacer is slightly ahead of the spammer. The TU makes the pacer get further out in front, which is why I said “further emphasizing the increased advantage of pacing.”

> As far as im concerned now all spammers have been made into pacers,

This is definitely not true. That is what Zero Bloom is. If anything, 85% bloom makes pacing more of a required skill, because missing a shot while spamming is punished more than it was in 100% bloom.

> 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.

Bullet magnetism is there whether you pace or spam. Are you saying it’s better to spam like crazy in the hopes that bullet magnetism will kick in instead of letting the reticule reset and shooting the headshot? I would say that my findings indicate that strategy will work less often in 85% bloom.

If there’s “no difference” between spamming and pacing in 85% bloom, why don’t you spam all the time at long range? Obviously, that’s a bad idea because you’ll lose 88% of time doing that. There is still quite a big difference between pacing and spamming, you need to know when and where to do either.

> 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.

Like you said, sandbox balancing is a completely different issue, one that has a lot to do with personal preference. It was clearly stated in the “Further Notes” portion of my study that my results do not have any conclusions about weapon balance.

Thank you for posting your concerns, hopefully I have helped you understand my results. I apologize again for any confusion.

I am planning on re-writing my article in a new post that will leave out the inaccurate statistics and calculations to make the conclusions more clear.

If you made it all the way through this post, thanks for reading! :slight_smile:

#20

> Depends what you define as “the spam problem”. I always regarded it as pacing perfectly aimed shots at someone short range but them getting the kill with 5 spammed shots including the last fluky headshot. Thats what makes people throw their controllers at the wall. The data says this now happens almost twice as often at close range with 85% because there’s barely any difference between them anymore.
>
> If you get killed while pacing because your opponent has the time to put 8+ spammed shots into you to kill you with a bodyshot like a lot of hoovaloovs data suggests then thats not blooms fault, you just tried to be super accurate by pacing and you failed. I think thats where those numbers you quoted come from.
>
> Hmm actually if im right, then i might have uncovered a flaw in the entire premise of the study which would also affect the conclusion, namely the definition of the spam problem. Not that im disrespecting his efforts, its been great to read some empirical evidence on the subject for once.
>
> This isnt the only bad thing about it too, there is other stuff in the OP.

The TU significantly reduces the number of kills from completely spammed shots at short and medium range, and is the same as 100% bloom as long range. Even though the TU increases the chances of a 5 shot spam kill, if the spammer misses any his shots due to bloom, the pacer will win. This is a big improvement over 100% bloom where the spammer could miss one shot and still wind up with the kill.

Basically, the TU takes away the one shot “cushion” the spammer had in 100% bloom. Whoever misses first, pacer or spammer, will lose. So 85% rewards the vastly superior accuracy of pacing.

All of this translates to a significant increase in the winning percentage of pacers in the TU compared to 100% bloom.