47 replies to this topic

[cnagorneac]

Show the math.

This reminds me my economic studies, when professor was telling us: -Here is the math, but you have to undestand that it works only in conditions of perfect market, so you need to know them only to undestand principles, but real perfect market is not possible. Looks like same with the math application in this case.
As me personally i've never been at war, but i couple of years played tactical paintball. And for almost 4 years it happened only once when I was able theoretically "stab" an opponent (I just pulled his barrel), only once in 4 years. Knowing that anyway nothing really bad will not happen to me. And taking into account situation that the enemy was 1 meter (end of his barrel I would say half a meter) from the doorframe and couldnt react on my diving under his barrel. but I had very-very slim chances, if he would be at least half meter further or if I would miss grabbing his barrel, i would receive some marks undoubtly.

[mr31337]

This reminds me my economic studies, when professor was telling us: -Here is the math, but you have to undestand that it works only in conditions of perfect market, so you need to know them only to undestand principles, but real perfect market is not possible. Looks like same with the math application in this case.
As me personally i've never been at war, but i couple of years played tactical paintball. And for almost 4 years it happened only once when I was able theoretically "stab" an opponent (I just pulled his barrel), only once in 4 years. Knowing that anyway nothing really bad will not happen to me. And taking into account situation that the enemy was 1 meter (end of his barrel I would say half a meter) from the doorframe and couldnt react on my diving under his barrel. but I had very-very slim chances, if he would be at least half meter further or if I would miss grabbing his barrel, i would receive some marks undoubtly.

A lovely anecdote.

[BlackAlpha]

A lovely anecdote.

Multiple people have now told you that you are wrong. You can keep ridiculing people and telling yourself you are right no matter what, but know that you are only lying to yourself and you are only making things worse for yourself.

You can now continue to lie to yourself to make you feel good about yourself. Or you can accept that you were wrong, face the truth, and move on.

[Dark]

Random fact:
A police officer in Canada is considered to be in imminent danger from a hostile knife-wielding suspect within a 30-foot radius, and is authorized to use deadly force.

The Tueller Drill shows that it takes about 1.33 to 1.5 seconds for an attacker to reach you with a knife at 21 feet, and that's too close if your weapon is holstered.

That said, I've never had a problem gunning down people charging at my mercs, so long as you actually know what the stances do.

There's also the 121' rule.

[hruza]

Reason for close combat not occurring in combat often have more to do with psychology rather than physic. Going close in to melee puts you seemingly in to immediate and high danger. Even if it might be completely illusory. So people avoid it.

I was reading somewhere about recorded anecdote from Napoleonic wars (I think it was battle of Waterloo) when French soldiers entered building and found English soldiers parked on the other side of the room. Soldiers fired their muskets on opponents, most of them missing. Now remarkable thing happened. Instead of rushing to kill each other with bayonets, they started to reload their muskets. Reloading musket takes considerable time as you know, around one minute so it was absurd. Firefight continued like this for some time with soldiers firing at each other across room.

[mr31337]

Multiple people have now told you that you are wrong. You can keep ridiculing people and telling yourself you are right no matter what, but know that you are only lying to yourself and you are only making things worse for yourself.

You can now continue to lie to yourself to make you feel good about yourself. Or you can accept that you were wrong, face the truth, and move on.

Nobody has shown I am wrong and supported it with evidence.
Even the paintball anecdote supported what the maths showed, that it is possible.

I take it your opinion is knives are over powered in the game? My point is that we cannot dismiss the significant danger of a knife-attcker at close range and if you do then you may as well not include them in the game in the first place.

Personally I have no problem killing melee attackers with my mers now, but the first it happened Grunty got shanked... I think the game has it about right, it can be a very effective tactic against the untrained, or very close range.

Random fact:
A police officer in Canada is considered to be in imminent danger from a hostile knife-wielding suspect within a 30-foot radius, and is authorized to use deadly force.

The Tueller Drill shows that it takes about 1.33 to 1.5 seconds for an attacker to reach you with a knife at 21 feet, and that's too close if your weapon is holstered.

That said, I've never had a problem gunning down people charging at my mercs, so long as you actually know what the stances do.

There's also the 121' rule.

I lol'd ...then I lol'd some more! That guy would kick ass! I want him on my merc team.

[mr31337]

Reason for close combat not occurring in combat often have more to do with psychology rather than physic. Going close in to melee puts you seemingly in to immediate and high danger. Even if it might be completely illusory. So people avoid it.

I was reading somewhere about recorded anecdote from Napoleonic wars (I think it was battle of Waterloo) when French soldiers entered building and found English soldiers parked on the other side of the room. Soldiers fired their muskets on opponents, most of them missing. Now remarkable thing happened. Instead of rushing to kill each other with bayonets, they started to reload their muskets. Reloading musket takes considerable time as you know, around one minute so it was absurd. Firefight continued like this for some time with soldiers firing at each other across room.

I wonder if this might be because of the large volume of bad smelling, eye watering, blackpowder gunsmoke those old muskets used to make?

[cnagorneac]

A lovely anecdote.

You are just jealous cause i am an ultimate asskicker , but you are most probably just a geek with a calculator. Sure it is my Very-Very humble opinion.

[mr31337]

You are just jealous cause i am an ultimate asskicker , but you are most probably just a geek with a calculator. Sure it is my Very-Very humble opinion.

You're right of course. I don't even know what all the buttons on my calculator do.

Actually your anecdote supports the math that shows it is possible. So...thank you?

[Calippo]

Gentlemen, doing your math, you forgot to consider the base of every modern RPG: if the attacker holds a knife, or any bladed hand-to-hand weapon, and decides to attack, he can make a free movement to reach his target equal to half of his AG bonus. Sometimes this free movement is defined by the rulebook and it's equal to 1,5m

[Sleught]

What are you talking about? I showed the math. You've only offered anecdotes.

Your math is plain bullshit with the only intent to support your POV.

Read why military seeked the so called stopping power.
If you don t get how wrong you are after that then try it with live ammo. Don t worry, If you dont die, you can report AAR from hospital.

[mr31337]

Your math is plain bullshit with the only intent to support your POV.

Read why military seeked the so called stopping power.
If you don t get how wrong you are after that then try it with live ammo. Don t worry, If you dont die, you can report AAR from hospital.

Explain why the math is wrong, if you can.

Post a link to your "military seeked the so called stopping power" and I will read it.

If a scientist says you statisticially have a reasonable chance to survive a car crash, would you want to be in the car when it crashes? Does it mean he is wrong if you suffer an injury or die when you crash that car?

Please remain polite, if you can.

[cnagorneac]

You're right of course. I don't even know what all the buttons on my calculator do.

Actually your anecdote supports the math that shows it is possible. So...thank you?

I wasn't telling that stabbing is impossible. In my post I definitely said that it IS possible, but in VERY limited distance and occasion.
As for the GAME I think that in the game melee just gives more posible ways to kill an enemy. And I like how it works here.
if the enemy would have knives that they would use them in close range that would be perfect.

[cnagorneac]

Your math is plain bullshit with the only intent to support your POV.

Don't speak about POV. that reminds me of a certain genre of certain movies...

[FuzzyLogic]

Don't speak about POV. that reminds me of a certain genre of certain movies...

Did the Blair Witch Project scare you that much!?

...sorry for the offtopic.

[skeeball]

The math shows it is within the realms of possibility.

I like the way you have ignored the maths and just give an opinion without any supporting facts, data or math.

Taking a stance on probability is not a stance. It's within the realms of possibility for me to go to the moon.

As far as your comment, you yourself stated variables determined the output, I stated some variables. It was my comment, which gave no scenarios, that this started from. That comment didn't even actually infer that it wasn't possible, it inferred that in order to do it you had to be some incredibly trained, physical specimen to kill a man with a knife before the opposition can pull a trigger on shotgun.

You don't want to do math, you just want to argue, that's why it was ignored.

[mr31337]

Taking a stance on probability is not a stance. It's within the realms of possibility for me to go to the moon.

As far as your comment, you yourself stated variables determined the output, I stated some variables. It was my comment, which gave no scenarios, that this started from. That comment didn't even actually infer that it wasn't possible, it inferred that in order to do it you had to be some incredibly trained, physical specimen to kill a man with a knife before the opposition can pull a trigger on shotgun.

You don't want to do math, you just want to argue, that's why it was ignored.

What are you talking about? It was me who did the math.

[Kotzi]

1. Not everyone can run that fast.
2. In your example you are talking about max velocity. But who runs around with max velocity. Everyone has to get movin first and that takes time.
3. The reaction time counts for both.
4. No one passes 1 metre before another bends his index finger. Thats not possible if they both meet by chance.

[mr31337]

1. Not everyone can run that fast.

Yet it is humanly possible without being "nanobot genetically mutated military squad".

2. In your example you are talking about max velocity. But who runs around with max velocity. Everyone has to get movin first and that takes time.

It wasn't my example, it was skeebal's.
Where I used 'max velocity' in considering his example I am using a value that it is known to be humanly possible without being "nanobot genetically mutated military squad".

3. The reaction time counts for both.

I already stated I would expect a diffferent outcome if we assume reaction time for both.

4. No one passes 1 metre before another bends his index finger. Thats not possible if they both meet by chance.

I have never posted that "if they both meet by chance" that it is possible.

[Frei]

I can only laugh when people "show math" and then they think that means they have an argument won.

Your math is, for one, completely flawed. You're also using statistics from ideal conditions, a world record athlete running at peak condition, unarmored and lightly clothed. You also don't take acceleration into account, but rather just... the time it would take to touch the gunman, which in your case seems to mean gunman = instantly dead, then.

The other big thing is you're trying to apply logic to a game world where they have to concede some realism for gameplay elements. In this game, when a person takes off running, they're already running at their max speed, and when they reach someone with a gun, the that person is forced to use melee as well. In close quarters, a trained combatant can use a pistol in self defense against a knife. Also, basically anyone who has even fired a gun would be able to squeeze off some rounds, and even if the runner had kevlar on, it's very likely that they would be knocked down or stopped.

So basically, your math AND logic are flawed and you're just making yourself sound more ridiculous in every post where you ask everyone where their "math" is. Math is barely relevant here, if at all.