Paintball

[heinous]

Originally Posted by P0E

Why would anyone think a group of tenuous theories is more informative than a poorly performed empirical test which results in a limited data set? That's all I said.

because the data sets have multiple variables. they can be more detrimental than mere ideas because they can be misleading and also be misread. look how the guy jumps to conclusions all the time when talking about his own data. you gotta stay unbiased if you want to do things right and he's long since went off that road. when you have an idea you naturally want to see evidence that supports it. that's fine when the test singles out just your idea, but what happens when the test has multiple factors is the reader who likes one variable brushes off the other variables, even though they are just as big a factor as the one the reader likes. the end result is the inconclusive test ends up making you even more biased than before you read it. you end up being like that guy.

[Ramous]

What about this factor... if your sticking out of your bunker spraying a lane at whatever BPS you want, what are the chances an experienced stock class player can put 1 ball on you with a snap shot on you before you noticed he even shot?

A lot higher I bet.

[tjd10684]

Originally Posted by Ramous

What about this factor... if your sticking out of your bunker spraying a lane at whatever BPS you want, what are the chances an experienced stock class player can put 1 ball on you with a snap shot on you before you noticed he even shot?

A lot higher I bet.

Ya know what's even worse when you start to get good with both. When you can gun battle like a pumper and put volume down field like an air baller now you're getting scarry on the field.

[SNAKESNIPER]

Originally Posted by El Super Beasto

Don't check out techpb for anything.

This.

[P0E]

Originally Posted by heinous

because the data sets have multiple variables. they can be more detrimental than mere ideas because they can be misleading and also be misread. look how the guy jumps to conclusions all the time when talking about his own data. you gotta stay unbiased if you want to do things right and he's long since went off that road. when you have an idea you naturally want to see evidence that supports it. that's fine when the test singles out just your idea, but what happens when the test has multiple factors is the reader who likes one variable brushes off the other variables, even though they are just as big a factor as the one the reader likes. the end result is the inconclusive test ends up making you even more biased than before you read it. you end up being like that guy.

Just because Cockerpunk jumps to conclusions doesn't mean we're all equally weak.

I see the test for what it is; Various people running through lanes fired from 100' away at several ball rates with only hits being collected or even considered. The results show no trend. Which is understandable considering the sample size is small enough to place data squarely in 'the noise'.

Surely that paragraph didn't force your brain to become biased?

I understand your frustration with Punkworks though. Their tests give them an aura of unimpeachable authority and unapproachable, albeit undeserved, credibility in the minds of the mindless masses.

Sucks that the only counter is to perform tests yourself.... and that's like lots of work compared to making forum posts. amiright?

[Spider!]

Originally Posted by P0E

Sucks that the only counter is to perform tests yourself.... and that's like lots of work compared to making forum posts. amiright?

It's kind of like Mythbusters. It's fun and informative to watch the experiments, but often some basic calculations would tell you that the idea is feasible or not within the assumptions.

Just because you can show mathematically that 15 bps has a better hit probability than 12 bps doesn't make the statement worthless (well, to some people).

The actual calculation of some linear spread of paint and the width of a two dimensional target that can fit between them at some rate of travel may not give you the answer to life, the universe and everything, but it will tell you what the limit of the situation is. From there, you can start throwing in variations and throwing out assumptions.

It's like the total energy stored in a 45/4500 tank. Any shot count over about 30 something % efficiency is all magic and unicorns.

[Slipknot666]

Originally Posted by heinous

you wouldn't say that after you fully understand how a proper experiment should be done and what can make or break it. that link's broken, but the tests that i've seen and asked him about, he couldn't even afford to have all the control runs. tests are useless if it can't rule out every other likely factors. not that it's his fault for being low on money, but the end result remains the same: that his tests have become pointless.

I've seen this before, I want the math behind it :[ I know someone did the math on it! Like to have it and read up on it haha.

[heinous]

Originally Posted by P0E

Just because Cockerpunk jumps to conclusions doesn't mean we're all equally weak.

Sucks that the only counter is to perform tests yourself.... and that's like lots of work compared to making forum posts. amiright?

yeah, but who do you think cockerpunk's experiments are meant for, and how weak do you think they are? it's the same tards who've bought every marketing gimmick this industry has dished out the past 2 decades, some of them even let their minds fool themselves into thinking those things actually work because they spent money.

Originally Posted by Spider!

It's kind of like Mythbusters. It's fun and informative to watch the experiments, but often some basic calculations would tell you that the idea is feasible or not within the assumptions.

thanks, that's basically exactly what i wanted to say.

i even saw their experiment on "can a plane take off on a tarp moving in the opposite direction" and remember that's actually a question from my HIGH SCHOOL physics class. guess what, we figured it out even as kids.

as an example, you wouldn't need to actually perform the tests yourself to realize all guns without backspin or first strike shoot at the same range when chrono'd the same either, and that's not even much more effort than making a forum post. it's basic math, basic physics that once again is available to everyone who chooses to take that class in high school.

Originally Posted by Slipknot666

I've seen this before, I want the math behind it :[ I know someone did the math on it! Like to have it and read up on it haha.

i don't even remember what it was about, just that he was so sure of the results even though he acknowledges the multiple variables.

[paintballedbackin88]

In other words, we're back to 42

[P0E]

Originally Posted by heinous

yeah, but who do you think cockerpunk's experiments are meant for, ...

Originally Posted by Spider!

It's kind of like Mythbusters. It's fun and informative to watch the experiments, but often some basic calculations would tell you that the idea is feasible or not within the assumptions.

Exactly like the test itself, the usefulness of those basic calculations depend entirely on the assumptions. Basic calculations with incomplete assumptions are used just as often as faulty tests to reinforce preconceived theories. Hell, just look at political statistics.

I like tests because they can lead to discovery even when performed poorly.

Originally Posted by heinous

...
as an example, you wouldn't need to actually perform the tests yourself to realize all guns without backspin or first strike shoot at the same range when chrono'd the same either, and that's not even much more effort than making a forum post. it's basic math, basic physics that once again is available to everyone who chooses to take that class in high school.

Funny you mentioned this test. Sometime in the 90s, Cocker owners were claiming they shot farther. I explained why that was 'mathematically' impossible with some basic calculations. One guy was adamant so I setup a test with our markers.

To my surprise, I discovered the results not only didn't match my range calculations, but the Cocker DID shoot measurably farther!

The problem was that I assumed all paint had relatively equal mass. Turns out this error range can be significant and Cocker players typically had more money and purchased the higher quality (heavier due to fill composition and fill percentage) paint.

They were in-fact shooting farther, but not because of their assumption (gun).