This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Assassin 11D7
Pages: 1 ... 171172173 174175 ... 336
5161
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:51:59 AM »
No seriously this place is just gonna be another one of the fuckin' anti-weeb echo-chambers that thinks a katana is made of god damn balsa wood and shatters as soon as it hits something that isn't skin or bamboo
Bunch of ignorant bitch bastards
dafuq? There are a bunch of weebs/anime fans here. We make jokes, we laugh at each other. Take it easy, or if you can't, then leaving might be best. You do realize there is discussion right above you that is opposite of what you said you think it will be?
5162
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:37:47 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?
Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.
I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.
I swear to god, if you complain about the ranking system when the game launches...
>implying they'd listen to me >implying I wouldn't get drowned out by countless dummies >implying the game isn't going to suck anyway
5163
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:12:29 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?
Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.
I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.
5164
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:40:10 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
5165
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:32:24 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
5166
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:26:39 AM »
Historically speaking, a Samurai being good at sword fighting was a bad thing. It meant you were a shitty archer and had to lower yourself to the likes of a peasant by fighting in close quarters.
I'd actually be pretty entertained if all the animu weeaboos that want to be Samurai swordsmen found this out and desperately tried to become archers. I can imagine some wise old man laughing his heart out while mass producing Yumis frantically being ordered online.
5167
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:21:51 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
5168
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:15:32 AM »
i dont understand the appeal of a cantana
is it weebs that are obsessed with them or something
well to be fair a cantana would totally fuck up any unarmed person, lol
Yes, you can kill anyone with a stick if you really wanted to. However, in the world of swords katanas historically were shitily constructed from crap materials, most produced today are still shit, and those that aren't shit aren't that special. They look cool and uneducated people are led to believe that all Katanas are god-like and can cut through anything as they are invincible from having the metal folded so many times.
5169
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
5170
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc. You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
5171
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:27:40 AM »
That thing is probably a chinese knockoff.
IIRC Japan doesn't let people take actual katanas out of their country. Historical cultural artifacts or some shit.
Uhh yes they do, you can get them commissioned from sword smiths
Costs more than that fedora tipper can afford, I'd reckon.
$20,000+ from a master sword smith >.>
And that's just the blade, not including the finished piece which you need another professional for.
This is the Gucci of swords, then? Extremely overpriced brand name.
Brand name?
Bruh these aren't made in a factory
Bah, same point. They've got a mythical/popular reputation, so whatever they make is light years more than what it's really worth.
5172
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:24:26 AM »
>he carries a crappy blade with pride
I think that's the cringiest part.
His name and pedo stache weren't cringier?
Nope. I fucking hate the katana cult.
Only if it's like the obsessed neck-bearded weaboos. I'd probably get one and hang it as a decorative piece with the nugget crate table I plan on building
They're nice for decoration, but I wouldn't bother wasting money on a quality one for decoration. Stainless steel has its purposes.
5173
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:22:02 AM »
That thing is probably a chinese knockoff.
IIRC Japan doesn't let people take actual katanas out of their country. Historical cultural artifacts or some shit.
Uhh yes they do, you can get them commissioned from sword smiths
Costs more than that fedora tipper can afford, I'd reckon.
$20,000+ from a master sword smith >.>
And that's just the blade, not including the finished piece which you need another professional for.
This is the Gucci of swords, then? Extremely overpriced brand name.
5174
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:20:42 AM »
> Using a katakana sword when you could use a Bidenhänder mit ein Parierhaken
Ich hoffe ernsthaft Euch das nicht zu tun.
5175
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:16:57 AM »
"I've become more dangerous without the katana than with it, it's more a restraint mechanism than a safety blanket"
What the fuck
So long as he is attacked in Assassin's Creed fashion, he should be fine.
5176
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:15:16 AM »
Weebs burn in hell, Hiroshima bombing best day of my life.
#2bombswasn'tenough
go to bed gramps
>Implying my sleep schedule isn't so fucked up that I could sleep right now anyway
5177
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
5178
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:10:32 AM »
That thing is probably a chinese knockoff.
IIRC Japan doesn't let people take actual katanas out of their country. Historical cultural artifacts or some shit.
Nah, collectors have them. Also people that took them back from WWII I imagine.
5179
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:08:15 AM »
Weebs burn in hell, Hiroshima bombing best day of my life.
#2bombswasn'tenough
5180
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:44:04 PM »
You fuckers wouldn't say this shit to his fucking face, pussies
>Carries a Longsword 
5181
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:30:28 PM »
this video:
50% firing a gun
50% an old man laughing
It is delightful
5182
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:28:40 PM »
Suppressive fire? The same point as when it was first developed?
Is firing 6.7 rounds per second not count as suppressive fire?
Well, yeah, but it's not as consistent or as efficient as just squeezing a trigger once and having the gun do it for you.
But this is legal and doesn't cost a shit ton.
well yeah
but full auto should be legal
and shouldn't cost a shit ton
But then terrorists would kill thousands every day in America. Stop the terrorists, remove guns.
5183
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:25:56 PM »
Suppressive fire? The same point as when it was first developed?
Is firing 6.7 rounds per second not count as suppressive fire?
Well, yeah, but it's not as consistent or as efficient as just squeezing a trigger once and having the gun do it for you.
But this is legal and doesn't cost a shit ton.
5184
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:22:40 PM »
Suppressive fire? The same point as when it was first developed?
Is firing 6.7 rounds per second not count as suppressive fire?
5185
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:20:41 PM »
it's a lot of bitching, dicks, etc
That's what it's always been.
5186
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:19:36 PM »
This man has evolved past the need for it.
5187
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:18:18 PM »
I don't see you on here a lot, but from what you've posted you've always seemed like a really good-willed person.
5188
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:26:38 PM »
How the hell did this get bumped lol
It's still relevant tho, give me legendary or I'll cry #MODBIAS
Get 329 posts
5189
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:23:58 PM »
I thought discussing the Open Carrying of Katanas was a very serious discussion. What happened?
5190
« on: January 01, 2015, 09:30:42 PM »
 Someone needs to acquire the patents for this gun, improve it, modernize it, and start some mass fucking production! We need this space gun!
If they're modernizing it, then won't it already be different to the point where you don't need to get the patent, assuming the patent isn't expired?
Pages: 1 ... 171172173 174175 ... 336
|
Show Posts