I suggest you all give this a read.
It is finally some proof that 85% favors the skilled paced shooter over the spammer.
Looks like someone was logged into Facebook.
Though it helps in arguments, most already knew 85 was an improvement over 100. Glad to see someone had the time (and the knowledge of mathematical statistics that boggle my mind) to create an article about it.
Someone did their homework. Pretty interesting.
I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
> I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
>
> I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
>
> I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
It’s also under the impression that players stand still during combat.
> > I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
> >
> > I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
> >
> > I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
>
> It’s also under the impression that players stand still during combat.
No, it is under the impression that the player has perfect aim.
> I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
>
> I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
>
> I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
343 obviously came up with 85% for a reason. I’m sure they tested every settings. I’m sure 90% still caused some BS when pacing, and 80% was too little bloom for pacing to be effective. IDC what the problem is. 85% works.
And regardless of the accuracy of his tests, it is pretty clear in game to anyone who actually pays attention that 85% bloom does what 100% could not: Make it so that pacing is hands down the way to shoot.
> > > I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
> > >
> > > I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
> > >
> > > I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
> >
> > It’s also under the impression that players stand still during combat.
>
> No, it is under the impression that the player has perfect aim.
>
> Honestly what is your problem dude?
>
>
>
> > I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
> >
> > I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
> >
> > I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
>
> 343 obviously came up with 85% for a reason. I’m sure they tested every settings. I’m sure 90% still caused some BS when pacing, and 80% was too little bloom for pacing to be effective. IDC what the problem is. 85% works.
>
> And regardless of the accuracy of his tests, it is pretty in game to anyone who actually pays attention that 85% bloom does what 100% could not: Make it so that pacing is hands down the way to shoot.
Matt it basicly makes the DMR and needle rifle mini snipers and while that might be super cool for some, I like using other weapons, honestly if the wanted to promote pacing they would add more bloom not less and I thought we were going to be able to test it out in the TU beta playlist, they put 0 bloom and 85% and thats it.
This proves what us proponents of 85 have been saying. Feels good to be proven right.
> This proves what us proponents of 85 have been saying. Feels good to be proven right.
Even with the facts.
RDF will still say
100 bloom is THE BEST and u need to adapt.
True story
I see they put a LINK up to this on the front page. It was an interesting read. I guess 343 thought so too.
85% doesn’t punish spammers, it just makes pacing easier. The test actually supports that. Normally, I don’t really care about whether spamming is effective enough. It’s just that when you up fire rate of paced shots, it wrecks havoc on the effectiveness of other weapons. If anything, they should increase bloom size but decrease reset time. The assault rifle should win at close quarters.
> 85% doesn’t punish spammers, it just makes pacing easier. The test actually supports that. Normally, I don’t really care about whether spamming is effective enough. It’s just that when you up fire rate of paced shots, it wrecks havoc on the effectiveness of other weapons. If anything, they should increase bloom size but decrease reset time. The assault rifle should win at close quarters.
I don’t understand how one can consider pacing hard in any settings.
> I see they put a LINK up to this on the front page. It was an interesting read. I guess 343 thought so too.
Hello Link =)
I would just like to point out that a human will not reproduce exactly the same perfectly timed trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times in a row.
I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
If pacing is the point Link, then why was 115% 0r 200% not tested? If pacing is not the point, then what is the point? I have had plenty of DMR duels, some I lost, some I won and I always assume when I die, the other player has out aimed or out manuvered me. Am I to assume that the “random luck variable” is so substantial that it bordered on game breaking and 343 felt that this must be addressed without any other bloom settings being tested in the the TU beta playlist besides 85% and 0%?
I am reading something that is interesting too, 343s response to this, good decisions rarely need justification or studies to prove their validity. Have they posted a study where somebody proves it was a good idea to nerf what basicly equates to 2/5 of AA users, because I am dying to find out why my preference has been given less importance than someone elses.
> > This proves what us proponents of 85 have been saying. Feels good to be proven right.
>
> Even with the facts.
>
> RDF will still say
>
> 100 bloom is THE BEST and u need to adapt.
>
> True story
How about YOU adapt to life. You just ignored facts yet cling onto your deteriorating belief platform. Hurry, ADAPT and jump for the platform that isn’t crumbling due to poor construction.
> > I see they put a LINK up to this on the front page. It was an interesting read. I guess 343 thought so too.
>
> Hello Link =)
>
> I would just like to point out that a human will not reproduce exactly the same perfectly timed trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times in a row.
>
> I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
>
> If pacing is the point Link, then why was 115% 0r 200% not tested? If pacing is not the point, then what is the point? I have had plenty of DMR duels, some I lost, some I won and I always assume when I die, the other player has out aimed or out manuvered me. Am I to assume that the “random luck variable” is so substantial that it bordered on game breaking and 343 felt that this must be addressed without any other bloom settings being tested in the the TU beta playlist besides 85% and 0%?
>
> I am reading something that is interesting too, 343s response to this, good decisions rarely need justification or studies to prove their validity. Have they posted a study where somebody proves it was a good idea to nerf what basicly equates to 2/5 of AA users, because I am dying to find out why my preference has been given less importance than someone elses.
The better you get at aiming and strafing the more you start to notice the defects of the mechanic.
> > > This proves what us proponents of 85 have been saying. Feels good to be proven right.
> >
> > Even with the facts.
> >
> > RDF will still say
> >
> > 100 bloom is THE BEST and u need to adapt.
> >
> > True story
>
> How about YOU adapt to life. You just ignored facts yet cling onto your deteriorating belief platform. Hurry, ADAPT and jump for the platform that isn’t crumbling due to poor construction.
He was using sarcasm lol. He is one of us.
> > > This proves what us proponents of 85 have been saying. Feels good to be proven right.
> >
> > Even with the facts.
> >
> > RDF will still say
> >
> > 100 bloom is THE BEST and u need to adapt.
> >
> > True story
>
> How about YOU adapt to life. You just ignored facts yet cling onto your deteriorating belief platform. Hurry, ADAPT and jump for the platform that isn’t crumbling due to poor construction.
Lol
calm down buddy, I’m pro TU. o.o
> > > > I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
> > > >
> > > > I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
> > >
> > > It’s also under the impression that players stand still during combat.
> >
> > No, it is under the impression that the player has perfect aim.
> >
> > Honestly what is your problem dude?
> >
> >
> >
> > > I would just like to point out that a human being will not reproduce exactly the same trigger pull and react at precisely the moment the reticle resets 150 times.
> > >
> > > I applaud this gentleman for what is a highly indepth exam, however I bet if he ran the same exact test, the same exact way, with the same person using the same controller on the same TV and XboX, he would come out with at minimum a slightly different conclusion.
> > >
> > > I was just wondering why the bloom settings have been confined to 85% and 0%, why have 90% or 80% or even 110% been tested for playability
> >
> > 343 obviously came up with 85% for a reason. I’m sure they tested every settings. I’m sure 90% still caused some BS when pacing, and 80% was too little bloom for pacing to be effective. IDC what the problem is. 85% works.
> >
> > And regardless of the accuracy of his tests, it is pretty in game to anyone who actually pays attention that 85% bloom does what 100% could not: Make it so that pacing is hands down the way to shoot.
>
> Matt it basicly makes the DMR and needle rifle mini snipers and while that might be super cool for some, I like using other weapons, honestly if the wanted to promote pacing they would add more bloom not less and I thought we were going to be able to test it out in the TU beta playlist, they put 0 bloom and 85% and thats it.
I find it really hard to believe that it makes the DMR or NR noticeably more effective than they were on 100% compared to other weapons. You could spam across countdown or zealot while scoped in and hit every shot. It really seems to me all 85% did was make 1v1’s more reliable, as it barely sped up kill times or make the DMR more effective at longer ranges at all. Maybe you notice it more now that you’re looking for it, but I personally don’t notice any difference in regards to long distance.
343 spent months testing 85%, and it clearly wasn’t, for whatever reason, a worthwhile idea to give the entire fan base a chance to test other %'s. I assume mostly because we’d come to the same conclusion. Not to mention it would just get confusing. It’s confusing enough right now. I was unbelievably skeptical about 85% and I even hated it when the TU first hit. But after playing on 100% again, I realized how much better 85% is while still not breaking the game (Unlike ZB). 343 seems to me to be looking into the best interests of Halo as a franchise, IMO. Halo since H2 has always been about precision and power weapons. The others needed to be nerfed while being made very easy to use to allow for a small learning curve with new players. I’m sure you remember how much of a beast the CE AR was, and practically ever weapon had it’s niche. The problem is, with “social” playlists, many players would be turned off if they couldn’t do well no matter what weapon they were using. Hence the nerf on auto weapons. It sucks, but that’s how it is.
> 85% doesn’t punish spammers, it just makes pacing easier. The test actually supports that. Normally, I don’t really care about whether spamming is effective enough. It’s just that when you up fire rate of paced shots, it wrecks havoc on the effectiveness of other weapons. If anything, they should increase bloom size but decrease reset time. The assault rifle should win at close quarters.
343 did not have the capability the modify the reset time, or at least they didn’t show the ability to do so. It seems that they only have to the ability to change how big the “Spread” is of the bloom. And not to mention, even if they did, that would reduce the aiming skill to practically nothing. quickness is the key factor in aiming ability. If you gave someone 10 seconds anyone could line up a perfect shot. The skill is in the quickness, the fact that you can fire 5 perfect shots in 2 seconds. Even if it was a 3SK, with the same kill time as now, the aiming skill would be so pitiful it would be even less of Halo than default Reach.
Also, Pacing, never rewarded skill, it rewarded calmness, or at least it was intended to. Even the best of us will lose a 1v1 because we got over excited and “Spammed”. This in itself is one of the faults of bloom as a whole; Halo has always been a high adrenaline fast paced game. Adrenaline heightens ones sense, thus increasing their aim and awareness, rewarding someone for suppressing their adrenaline is hardly something that should be a part of Halo. But I digress. Yes, Pacing is now “easier” but it also is now the WAY to shoot. Even today, there in no agreement on whether it’s better to spam or pace on 100%, everyone will say something different. In 85% pacing is clearly the way to shoot, thus reducing the vast majority of the randomness, with no modification to the actual RNG system. It’s actually pretty amazing how such a simple thing made the gun so much more reliable.