Help request: weapon testing

Tbh I've actually gotten pretty close with the Ben super shotgun.

Even with a trigger mod and a choke? Perhaps it would be good if you min max and have high strength and speed? Please share your thoughts =)

Hmm it's odd that you say that because through my years of experience I feel like the opposite is true. I am open to being wrong and I look forward to bringing the data to the torn public.

Yes. The dbk is op.

I'm testing it right now and I love it actually.

Try thee gud old AK?

homemade pocket/arma pls

The damage is terrible though :(

OP: I want to test some data. I have a suspicion that weapons may have a hidden crit variable.

You: They 100% definitely do not.

OP: Have you tested that? I would like to test it to find out for sure.

You: BuRdEn Of PrOoF iS oN yOu.


He is saying maybe, I would like to prove it one way or the other. You are saying it definitely does not. The burden of proof is on you my friend. You are the one speaking in absolutes.

Chad burn’s brain juice is the solution Load image: tongue

well, actually me: yes I have tested it over several years of weapons testing. ALSO since you're trying to prove an unsubstantiated rumour, that is literally how the burden of proof works, YOU have to prove it is a fact, I don't have to prove it isn't. Congrats on managing to find your caps lock key though.

I say "they definitely don't" in the same way that if someone told me "I have a dog that was born rainbow coloured" I would reply "no you definitely don't". A plethora of evidence suggests this is not possible, and the burden is on the claimant to prove otherwise.

Yes, the burden is on the claimant. He hasn't claimed anything. He said 'I would like to test something'. You said:

is just a completely unsubstantiated rumour that no one has ever bothered to try and prove.

No one has every tried to prove it one way or the other according to you, and now he is trying to prove it, and you are claiming that it absolutely does not exist. He asked you for your data, and you do not have any except your admittedly anecdotal 'Years of using all kinds of weapons tells me that...'.

So the burden of proof is on you.

I imagine if that's the case it was changed with RESPO or whenever the STR/DEF + SPD/DEX attacking formulas were changed tbh.

Well attack logs expire after 3 months so unless you want an easily manipulated google sheet with numbers that demonstrate critical hit rates don't vary with weapon choice it's not a falsifiable claim.

I would also say, no where did I say "absolutely" as if I have the definitive answer - that's emphasis you've added yourself. He suggested he thought there was a hidden modifier, I said nope there isn't, and followed that up with my reasoning for saying so (years of my own experience and testing).

Well attack logs expire after 3 months so unless you want an easily manipulated google sheet with numbers that demonstrate critical hit rates don't vary with weapon choice it's not a falsifiable claim.

So then it is entirely falsifiable. Just log the data. Easily achieved.

I said nope there isn't

No is an absolute statement. You didn't say 'maybe', or 'I dont believe so'. You said no.

From another of your replies:

I imagine if that's the case it was changed with RESPO or whenever the STR/DEF + SPD/DEX attacking formulas were changed tbh.

Now you are imagining things to avoid dissonance.


Im only arguing with you for shits and giggles, but your reasoning is entirely backwards. You are making claims. He is trying to gather data to test something using the scientific method. You were the one that said 'Burden of proof is on you'. You were wrong about that. That's not how burden of proof works.

The Benelli has like a 38.00 damage stat though right? Yuck! Load image: laughing

Extended mags in shotguns are solid... but not being able to use laser + choke hurts. Load image: disappointed

The Nock Gun with extended mags gets 2 volleys per reload as I understand it. That's actually pretty decent with special ammo and a choke if you ignore the "bonus" it has that does self-damage lol.

So then it is entirely falsifiable. Just log the data. Easily achieved.

Sure yes it is -- now -- not based on previous research/testing that led me to the conclusion of "no, this hidden crit variable doesn't exist".

No is an absolute statement. You didn't say 'maybe', or 'I dont believe so'. You said no.

Christ, I realise subtlety and nuance in text doesn't come across sometimes in forums but good grief. "No" was just a disagreement with his suggestion of the hidden modifier, lol. Shit, next time I will cover all possible bases so someone can't read into it I'm not directly implying.

Now you are imagining things to avoid dissonance.

I have no idea what the attempted point was here. I haven't seen a single post verifying that Ched stated there were hidden crit rates, but allowed it as a possibility and related it back to the fact that it is objective fact at one point in time the entire attacking system was completely revamped.

Im only arguing with you for shits and giggles, but your reasoning is entirely backwards. You are making claims. He is trying to gather data to test something using the scientific method. You were the one that said 'Burden of proof is on you'. You were wrong about that. That's not how burden of proof works.

The only "claim" I made was to refute the long-running rumour of the hidden modifier. He asked for a reference, which is the backwards part imo. If you believe there is a mechanic, you need a reference that it exists lol, not a reference that something made up doesn't exist. I also stated that I have done said testing with weapons, and found no such crit modifier. That doesn't change the fact if you believe there is a hidden modifier, without a reference you have to go out and prove there is. Which is fine, but I'm still gonna say "no there isn't" lol. And if attack logs ever become saveable, I'm sure it will be easier to actually show that.

Yeah I mean that's a damage disparity (say vs the ArmaLite) you can barely make up for with special ammo.

I have no idea if there is a hidden crit modifier. I took umbrage with your statement "the burden of proof is on you" directed at the OP. The OP is trying to prove the damn thing, and he never claimed it existed, he just wanted to find out. You were the one that said it didn't exist and the burden of proof was on him when he asked you for your data. You don't have any data because you are just assuming you are right, so you tried to use a "I sound smart" comeback, and I called you out on it.

I didn't ever say he can't find do the testing and find out, but if you make a claim based on a rumour you are the one who has to prove it.

Otherwise anyone could say anything insane-but-not-immediately-disprovable (for a number of reasons be it literally unfalsifiable, or lack of access to logs or whatever), and if anyone contests that because there has never been any evidence of it (e.g. they say "No there isn't") suddenly they're the ones who have to prove their claim? lol.

He asked for a reference which doesn't exist (because who goes round stating that all the things that don't exist, don't exist, what a waste of time). Of course he can have what I recorded, the literal data doesn't exist though as I said, which admittedly I thought was obvious and should have said explicitly previously.

And lol, you called me out on shit all. Using a pretty common phrase isn't "trying to sound smart".