Witte Wrote:All test up untill now (which are quite a few) showed that a max weapon is realy maxed, no matter how high your skills are. There hasnt been a single test with a different result, so my guess is that you are experiencing lag or something. I have experienced the same as you do, with exception that the person doing most damage was less skilled.

Quote:BTW I know of a study that was done on effectiveness of scopes and laser sites. It was proven without a doubt that laser sites and scopes do NOTHING but decay. They in no way shape or form increase dmg or hit ability.

Which test is this? Is there any data available?

My data disagrees with this. I logged into my avatar and did 1000 shots wiht a maxed h400 and recorded my hit and dmg rates. When I logged in with a avatar that still had the h400 maxed but has about half the skill I do in both dmg and hit I noticed a significant difference in avg dmg.

The person who did the testing never released their findings because they did not want to completely crash the weapon attachments market. Let me say this though, the laser sites were gargul (two of them) so there should have been a DEFINITE difference between 10,000 trigger pulls with and 10,000 trigger pulls without and there was no discernable difference whatsoever.

So to make a long story short there is no discernable difference between a UL weapon with attachments and a UL weapon without attachments over a test of 20,000 total data points in terms of avg dmg and avg hit rate. That is 10,000 with attachments and 10,000 without attachments. There is also a very discernable difference on a maxed (L) weapon in 5,000 data points between someone at 6,000 weapon related skills and someone at 15,000 weapon related skills.

Kyo7763 Wrote:Kaiser just a couple questions on what you said, do you hunt without a scope or sight? If so is that the reason, or if you do then why? Id really like to know if that test is accurate or not because i have seen alot of people who hunt w/out them in screenshots and i thought it was weird but that would explain why.

As to the weapon as kaiser said it is his dmg prof.

I hunt without weapon attachements on my primary weapon for this exact reason. Over a years time I have seen NO that is ZERO difference in UL weapons whether I do or don't have a laser or scope on. I am telling you it can be definitively proven that they do absolutly nothing but decay. I have tried the highest skill modification combo available two garguls and i forge twhich scope think it may have been dacascos. There is no avg dmg or hit rate difference at all with them attached. The skill mod for the entire combo was like 44% or somewhere in that range and that should have shown at least some difference.

Kaiser Wrote:[quote="Witte"]
My data disagrees with this. I logged into my avatar and did 1000 shots wiht a maced h400 and recored my hit and dmg rates. When I logged in with a avatar that still had the h400 maxed but has about half the skill i do in both dmg and hit I noticed a significant difference in avg dmg.

The danger with "noticing" is that you often notice the thing you want to notice. The only way to be sure it to write down and see there is a difference. Noticing something might be a good reason to do a test, but cant be used to base a conclusion on.

Quote:The person who did the testing never released their findings because they did not want to completely crash the weapon attachments market. Letme say this though, the laser sites were gargul (two of them) so there should have been a DEFINITE difference between 10,000 trigger pulls with and 10,000 trigger pulls without and there was no discernable difference whatsoever.

So to make a long story short there is no discernable difference between a UL weapon with attachments and a UL weapon without attachments over a test of 20,000 total data points in terms of avg dmg and avg hit rate. That is 10,000 with attachments and 10,000 without attachments. There is also a very discernable difference on a maxed (L) weapon in 5,000 data points between someone at 6,000 weapon related skills and someone at 15,000 weapon related skills.

I wont take the word of an annonymous person on it. I have done tests like that myself so I know how hard it is to test. Even the slightest lag can ruin all your test restults. There are many factors to take into account. So without publishing the data it is kinda uselss for others. We are unable to check if the right conculsions were made for right reasons. I have seen it way too often that people fit data into their theories, instead of base their theories on the data.

Anyhow, its is still a test to take note of, and it might be an interesting task for the community to test it further. (too bad i dont have the time anymore)

First off, the "notice" came form uniform testing with recorded data so it wasn't just a notice. I am well aware of human's being wired to notice patterns that were not there, I have OCD and have spent my entire life learning how to deal with absent pattern recognition. This was not a "notice" so to speak it was an observation from a test that included 2,000 (I misstated 5,000 earlier) data points which is more than enough to be considered provable and a sound observation.

As for the person who did the 20,000 clicks, it was for his own information I can tell you though I have personally seen the data and the right conclusions were absolutely drawn from the data that was gathered. As for the argument that even the slightest lag would ruin the test, I patently disagree. First off, for lag to be the issue here you would have STILL seen a difference. For what you are claiming to be correct the lag would have had to happen during the test with attachments attached and then disappear when the attachments were not attached. For this to happen would be next to impossible with that kind of accuracy. To make the lag explanation a further impossibility, the lag that appeared and then suddenly disappeared would have had to be constant (which if you work in networking you know NEVER happens) and the transit delay increase would have had to have been the EXACT amount needed to offset the skill gain. Even if lag WAS an issue there should have been some discernable difference between the unattached weapon and the 51% skill modification from the attached setup. Lag can not possibly in any way shape or form account for the findings observed over 20,000 points of recorded data.

Neither of these situations are plausible or even remotely likely. He is not the only one who has performed this test and received the same results either. For lag to be the explanation, this magic situation would have had to magically occur all the other times it was tested as well. Seriously, if you look around at the people aorund you, I think you will find that most people you see have no attachments on their weapons whether (L) or UL and there is a very good reason for this.

I don't mean this to sound condscending so I really hope you don't perceive it that way, I am just trying to be informative. What it boils down to though is that you must make your own decision. I am telling you without a doubt all you are doing is paying decay on items that give you no benefit whatsoever other than the ability to zoom in on a target (which is why I do still have a scope attached to my tagging weapon).

If we are talking about killing speed lag may be an issue but if we are talking about dmg per hit lag can not be issue. In that case latency can't change dmg dealed.

Kaiser Wrote:First off, the "notice" came form uniform testing with recorded data so it wasn't just a notice. I am well aware of human's being wired to notice patterns that were not there, I have OCD and have spent my entire life learning how to deal with absent pattern recognition. This was not a "notice" so to speak it was an observation from a test that included 2,000 (I misstated 5,000 earlier) data points which is more than enough to be considered provable and a sound observation.

It would very interesting if you publish this. In contradicts ealyer findings. So if you still have it, it would be quite helpfull if you post it .

Quote:As for the person who did the 20,000 clicks, it was for his own information I can tell you though I have personally seen the data and the right conclusions were absolutely drawn from the data that was gathered. As for the argument that even the slightest lag would ruin the test, I patently disagree. First off, for lag to be the issue here you would have STILL seen a difference. For what you are claiming to be correct the lag would have had to happen during the test with attachments attached and then disappear when the attachments were not attached. For this to happen would be next to impossible with that kind of accuracy. To make the lag explanation a further impossibility, the lag that appeared and then suddenly disappeared would have had to be constant (which if you work in networking you know NEVER happens) and the transit delay increase would have had to have been the EXACT amount needed to offset the skill gain. Even if lag WAS an issue there should have been some discernable difference between the unattached weapon and the 51% skill modification from the attached setup. Lag can not possibly in any way shape or form account for the findings observed over 20,000 points of recorded data.

Neither of these situations are plausible or even remotely likely. He is not the only one who has performed this test and received the same results either. For lag to be the explanation, this magic situation would have had to magically occur all the other times it was tested as well. Seriously, if you look around at the people aorund you, I think you will find that most people you see have no attachments on their weapons whether (L) or UL and there is a very good reason for this.

I don't mean this to sound condscending so I really hope you don't perceive it that way, I am just trying to be informative. What it boils down to though is that you must make your own decision. I am telling you without a doubt all you are doing is paying decay on items that give you no benefit whatsoever other than the ability to zoom in on a target (which is why I do still have a scope attached to my tagging weapon).

I see the possibility that attachments have no effects as plausible. But I have yet to see proof of this, and I just dont believe people I hardly know on their word. There has been quite some tests on this, in total way more then 20k clicks, and the results were still inconclusive. The reason for this was there were too many external factors not ruled out yet. A conclusion that was made, is that there seems to be quite some deviation between tests.

The fact that you rule out lag to influence the test, isnt realy making your case stronger. It has already been proven that there can be a deviation of over 5% between different tests. If you claim it cannot be lag, it can very likely be the attachments that made the difference in those tests.

All in all, without knowing the exact testconditions, and the exact testresults, the test you talk about just doesnt carry much weight. Questions like, what was the testers HA, were the clicks counted or the ammo use or decay, was the test on just one maturity of the same mob, or on several maturities or mobs, etc. People that did publish their results are of much greater value IMO. For some result from other people (i think a test I did is in one of those threads too), see:
http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums/item...ssion.html
http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums/item...asers.html

VanBuren Wrote:If we are talking about killing speed lag may be an issue but if we are talking about dmg per hit lag can not be issue. In that case latency can't change dmg dealed.

This test was for hit rate in % of total trigger pulls and avg dmg.

Witte Wrote:

Kaiser Wrote:First off, the "notice" came form uniform testing with recorded data so it wasn't just a notice. I am well aware of human's being wired to notice patterns that were not there, I have OCD and have spent my entire life learning how to deal with absent pattern recognition. This was not a "notice" so to speak it was an observation from a test that included 2,000 (I misstated 5,000 earlier) data points which is more than enough to be considered provable and a sound observation.

It would very interesting if you publish this. In contradicts ealyer findings. So if you still have it, it would be quite helpfull if you post it .

Quote:As for the person who did the 20,000 clicks, it was for his own information I can tell you though I have personally seen the data and the right conclusions were absolutely drawn from the data that was gathered. As for the argument that even the slightest lag would ruin the test, I patently disagree. First off, for lag to be the issue here you would have STILL seen a difference. For what you are claiming to be correct the lag would have had to happen during the test with attachments attached and then disappear when the attachments were not attached. For this to happen would be next to impossible with that kind of accuracy. To make the lag explanation a further impossibility, the lag that appeared and then suddenly disappeared would have had to be constant (which if you work in networking you know NEVER happens) and the transit delay increase would have had to have been the EXACT amount needed to offset the skill gain. Even if lag WAS an issue there should have been some discernable difference between the unattached weapon and the 51% skill modification from the attached setup. Lag can not possibly in any way shape or form account for the findings observed over 20,000 points of recorded data.

Neither of these situations are plausible or even remotely likely. He is not the only one who has performed this test and received the same results either. For lag to be the explanation, this magic situation would have had to magically occur all the other times it was tested as well. Seriously, if you look around at the people aorund you, I think you will find that most people you see have no attachments on their weapons whether (L) or UL and there is a very good reason for this.

I don't mean this to sound condscending so I really hope you don't perceive it that way, I am just trying to be informative. What it boils down to though is that you must make your own decision. I am telling you without a doubt all you are doing is paying decay on items that give you no benefit whatsoever other than the ability to zoom in on a target (which is why I do still have a scope attached to my tagging weapon).

I see the possibility that attachments have no effects as plausible. But I have yet to see proof of this, and I just dont believe people I hardly know on their word. There has been quite some tests on this, in total way more then 20k clicks, and the results were still inconclusive. The reason for this was there were too many external factors not ruled out yet. A conclusion that was made, is that there seems to be quite some deviation between tests.

The fact that you rule out lag to influence the test, isnt realy making your case stronger. It has already been proven that there can be a deviation of over 5% between different tests. If you claim it cannot be lag, it can very likely be the attachments that made the difference in those tests.

All in all, without knowing the exact testconditions, and the exact testresults, the test you talk about just doesnt carry much weight. Questions like, what was the testers HA, were the clicks counted or the ammo use or decay, was the test on just one maturity of the same mob, or on several maturities or mobs, etc. People that did publish their results are of much greater value IMO. For some result from other people (i think a test I did is in one of those threads too), see:
http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums/item...ssion.html
http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums/item...asers.html

My point being is that even a 5% deviation would not account for no difference with a 51% skill modification. The reason I say lag is not the factor here is again like I said the lag would have had to have been constant and the exact right amount to cover the almost indiscernable difference between the test sets of data. If there had been any difference at all I would say lag would be a factor.

It is just very implausible that there would be the exact amount of lag on the unattached portion of the test set to offset a 51% skill mod.

The most plausible situation is that the lag was exactly the same through both tests and that the attachments do nothing but decay. I especially percieve this to be the case considering MA's history and their refusal to say anything about what weapon attachments do.

I find it even more unlikely that when I did my testing I had the exact same perfect lag situation which caused me to see no difference as well.

You have some good points. I am not going to post someone else's data without their permission though. The problem is that people think lag explains everything. While lag does explain some things through my experience as a network admin and engineer I find it becomes the scapegoat more often than it should.

I think if you test it yourself though you are going to find the same exact thing I have and Travis has, that attachments produce nothing but a bigger bill at the repair terminal.

If you do decide to test it yourself I would be interested to see what your results are. No matter what the lag situation is you should see a large difference between attached an unattached weapons if the equipment does what it is supposed to.

As for your questions, HA was 6.0, same mob, same maturity, same spot, clicks were counted, data for every single click was written down as it happened (not back tracked) and the tests were done one right after the other.

Kaiser Wrote:My point being is that even a 5% deviation would not account for no difference with a 51% skill modification. The reason I say lag is not the factor here is again like I said the lag would have had to have been constant and the exact right amount to cover the almost indiscernable difference between the test sets of data. If there had been any difference at all I would say lag would be a factor.

The hard part of the test is that a 51% modification doesnt mean you hit 51% more, but, depending on your level, somewhere between 0% to 4% more. So it is very hard to measure.

Quote:It is just very implausible that there would be the exact amount of lag on the unattached portion of the test set to offset a 51% skill mod.

The most plausible situation is that the lag was exactly the same through both tests and that the attachments do nothing but decay. I especially percieve this to be the case considering MA's history and their refusal to say anything about what weapon attachments do.


I find it even more unlikely that when I did my testing I had the exact same perfect lag situation which caused me to see no difference as well.

I would not say its implausible. It depends a lot on the test times. What time of the week/day were they made? At one moment there is more lag then the other. A simple difference between midday and evening, can mess up your results completely.

Quote:You have some good points. I am not going to post someone else's data without their permission though. The problem is that people think lag explains everything. While lag does explain some things through my experience as a network admin and engineer I find it becomes the scapegoat more often than it should.

I think if you test it yourself though you are going to find the same exact thing I have and Travis has, that attachments produce nothing but a bigger bill at the repair terminal.

If you do decide to test it yourself I would be interested to see what your results are. No matter what the lag situation is you should see a large difference between attached an unattached weapons if the equipment does what it is supposed to.

As for your questions, HA was 6.0, same mob, same maturity, same spot, clicks were counted, data for every single click was written down as it happened (not back tracked) and the tests were done one right after the other.

Basicly, as I wrote above:
At level 60, the effects of attachments are almost optimal. But still, the difference is just 4% (if they work according to the most likely theory). So the difference is not easy to test. Reading the tests were done after eachother, I see lag as likely influence. One moment of the day there are another amount of people online then the other. A method to decrease this effect is to not count clicks, but to clount ammo use or decay. Then you will know the truely fired shots, as the ones that were lagged were not registered by the server and thus didnt cost ammo/decay.
It doesnt all have much to do that with networks, but mostly with server load.

Personally I did just one test, but the number of shots fired were rather low. The result did however end in favor of the attachments. One thing we can agree on, it that the effect of the attachment, if there is any, is very small.

The 0%-4% figure makes no sense. How can you determine that, that is the appropriate range when nobody knows what that skill modification really modifies (if anything). I obviously did not expect a 51% change in stats but I expected SOME change and there was none.

As for time of day etc. I agree you would see differing results based on time of day (solely based on MA's server load). I don't think you are catching what I am saying though. I have worked as a Network Admin and Engineer for ten years now. The lag would not be so different morning to night to account for this seeing no benefit at 51% skill modification. the tests were performed at the same time of day btw but that information aside. I go back to the fact that the lag difference would have had to be exact to compensate for nearly the exact same results attached and unattached. A change in transit time is not going to offset this skill gain perfectly, there is no way it ever could. As I said before, everyone is way to quick to chalk everything up to lag and it simply is not the explanation.

I think you are also missing how the tests were done. I did say multiple time that we did not just count clicks. Every time the gun was fired the hit/miss data was captured and the damage done by that shot was also captured. It had nothing to do with counting clicks. Enough ammo was taken out to fire the gun 10,000 times with and 10,000 times without attachments. Shots where no ammo was consumed would not have been counted (there were none).

What you are saying here though is a technological impossibility. It is not possible for the lag to change to the precise transit time (lag) that is needed to offset the skill gain at the exact moment that the attachments were added to the weapon.

What it boils down to is that players need to do what works best for them. I am telling you though I have seen very reliable data from a very reliable source that tells me there is no benefit to using weapons attachments at any level and I am not the only one who has seen this.

Hope you don't take this discussion as an argument it is not meant to be read that way, it's just nice to have someone to discuss this stuff with.

Kaiser Wrote:The 0%-4% figure makes no sense. How can you determine that, that is the appropriate range when nobody knows what that skill modification really modifies (if anything). I obviously did not expect a 51% change in stats but I expected SOME change and there was none.

The 0-4% range is based on the fact that 0HA gives ~80% hits and 10HA about 91% hits. At 6HA you would do ~86% hits so with skillmod (1.51*6 = 9HA) about 90% hits.

Quote:As for time of day etc. I agree you would see differing results based on time of day (solely based on MA's server load). I don't think you are catching what I am saying though. I have worked as a Network Admin and Engineer for ten years now. The lag would not be so different morning to night to account for this seeing no benefit at 51% skill modification. the tests were performed at the same time of day btw but that information aside. I go back to the fact that the lag difference would have had to be exact to compensate for nearly the exact same results attached and unattached. A change in transit time is not going to offset this skill gain perfectly, there is no way it ever could. As I said before, everyone is way to quick to chalk everything up to lag and it simply is not the explanation.

I dont say lag must be the explanation, but it can be. You, however, already excluded it from a possible explanation, which IMO is wrong. You have no data of the effect of lag on testresults so you cant exclude it.

Quote:I think you are also missing how the tests were done. I did say multiple time that we did not just count clicks. Every time the gun was fired the hit/miss data was captured and the damage done by that shot was also captured. It had nothing to do with counting clicks. Enough ammo was taken out to fire the gun 10,000 times with and 10,000 times without attachments. Shots where no ammo was consumed would not have been counted (there were none).

Well you littrally say "clicks were counted, data for every single click was written down as it happened (not back tracked) and the tests were done one right after the other."

So you say the clicks were counted, and the test were done at a different time. I am not sure where you said you did not just count clicks, or the tests were done on at the same moment of the day, but in the text i quiote above you say the oposite.

Quote:What you are saying here though is a technological impossibility. It is not possible for the lag to change to the precise transit time (lag) that is needed to offset the skill gain at the exact moment that the attachments were added to the weapon.

What it boils down to is that players need to do what works best for them. I am telling you though I have seen very reliable data from a very reliable source that tells me there is no benefit to using weapons attachments at any level and I am not the only one who has seen this.

Hope you don't take this discussion as an argument it is not meant to be read that way, it's just nice to have someone to discuss this stuff with.

Since you are contradicting yourself, to me the test doenst seem too relyable. But everyone is entitled to its own conclusions . And dont worry, I dont see it as an argument at all, you will have to do a lot more to get me emotional .

When I said clicks were counted, I meant (successful) clicks (ones that consumed ammo). It is not me who is excluding lag as a possible answer, it is Ethernet technology and IP communications that exclude lag. The likelihood of the perfect situation needed for lag to be the answer here is slim and rapidly approaching none. When you add the fact that the results can and have been repeated many more than one time it makes lag a virtually impossible situation.

I actually do not see where I contradicted myself. I said the same thing multiple times although admittedly I did use different words but the semantics are not the issue here. You are relying on the semantics of the language I used to get the same point across. Stating something in two different manners does not have an effect on the validity of the data though. Now, time of day is a relative term. To me a "time of day" may be a 4 hour period for you "time of day" might be a 30 minute period. Either way the test Travis did has been done by others at different "times of the day" and have all had the same result.

I do have a question though, where did you come up with the 91% figure for a maxed HA weapon? That is a different number than I have heard. I have heard the number is significantly lower. One thing I would like to point out though is if 91% is maxed that means each full HA point would give you 9.1% hit rate. By your theory (linear progression) a new player with a 1.0 HA let's say would miss 90.9% of their shots which is not the case. This tells me that it is not a linear progression which means there is no way to definitively say that it would be a 0%-4% gain. For all we know it could be a 0%-0.5% gain or it could be a 50% gain. Without the knowledge of the progressive curve or how it works it is impossible to say you should expect a gain of no more than x or no less than y.

Now, what my overall point about this is, is I myself and the others I know who have tested this all have found that the gain (if any) is absolutely so negligible that it certainly can be explained by standard deviation. imho this means that MA is not providing a service for the increased decay you are paying to use the items.

Now admittedly it is certainly possible that attachments are just rendered useless at some point because the non linear HA gain effect is much smaller at the top than at the bottom. this would actually make sense when you think about it because the skill ladder works the same way. The further you get the less far you get every time you go further (that was confusing LOL).

Anyway, I think this is one of the most fascinating parts of the game, trying to work out how things work. The problem is I also think it gives MA a major veil to say "it's dynamic" when we find things that do not work the way they should, do not provide the value they claim to, function improperly period, or as I believe are fraudulent like weapons attachments.

Kaiser Wrote:When I said clicks were counted, I meant (successful) clicks (ones that consumed ammo). It is not me who is excluding lag as a possible answer, it is Ethernet technology and IP communications that exclude lag. The likelihood of the perfect situation needed for lag to be the answer here is slim and rapidly approaching none. When you add the fact that the results can and have been repeated many more than one time it makes lag a virtually impossible situation.

Like I said in a previous post, it depends on when/how the test are made. What ethernet has to do with it all, beats me, unless you are doing those tests at MA's serverpark. The protocol that is most likely used is UDP which is an unrelyable way of sending data.

However, since you say you counted the ammo use instead of clicks, you will get much more relyable results, as it reduces or maybe even rules out the influence of lag. Unless ofcourse, the looted ammo was used again. Information like this is very important to interpretate the test results correctly, that is why I asked in the first place.

Quote:I actually do not see where I contradicted myself. I said the same thing multiple times although admittedly I did use different words but the semantics are not the issue here. You are relying on the semantics of the language I used to get the same point across. Stating something in two different manners does not have an effect on the validity of the data though. Now, time of day is a relative term. To me a "time of day" may be a 4 hour period for you "time of day" might be a 30 minute period.

This is why it is important to define the exact test situation, so there is no need for intepretation. A difference between 17:00 or 19:00 can be huge in terms of serverload, while the difference between 12:00 and 14:00 can be minimal.

Quote:Either way the test Travis did has been done by others at different "times of the day" and have all had the same result.

Just like others have done tests that did show a difference.

Quote:I do have a question though, where did you come up with the 91% figure for a maxed HA weapon? That is a different number than I have heard. I have heard the number is significantly lower. One thing I would like to point out though is if 91% is maxed that means each full HA point would give you 9.1% hit rate. By your theory (linear progression) a new player with a 1.0 HA let's say would miss 90.9% of their shots which is not the case. This tells me that it is not a linear progression which means there is no way to definitively say that it would be a 0%-4% gain. For all we know it could be a 0%-0.5% gain or it could be a 50% gain. Without the knowledge of the progressive curve or how it works it is impossible to say you should expect a gain of no more than x or no less than y.

This have been tested by quite some people. I was not talking about missrates, but about hitrates. So 0HA mean a hitrate of 80% and 10HA a hitrate of 91%. The progression have found to be linear.

Quote:Now, what my overall point about this is, is I myself and the others I know who have tested this all have found that the gain (if any) is absolutely so negligible that it certainly can be explained by standard deviation. imho this means that MA is not providing a service for the increased decay you are paying to use the items.

Now admittedly it is certainly possible that attachments are just rendered useless at some point because the non linear HA gain effect is much smaller at the top than at the bottom. this would actually make sense when you think about it because the skill ladder works the same way. The further you get the less far you get every time you go further (that was confusing LOL).

Anyway, I think this is one of the most fascinating parts of the game, trying to work out how things work. The problem is I also think it gives MA a major veil to say "it's dynamic" when we find things that do not work the way they should, do not provide the value they claim to, function improperly period, or as I believe are fraudulent like weapons attachments.

Overall I agree with this, however, I suggest to read the links I gave earlyer. You will find testresults that actually do show a difference that could be explained by the skillmod of attachments. Like I said earlyer, when you dont publish your tests, they dont care much weight. How were the tests of the others you talk about done? What were the testconditions, what was the expected outcome, etc. With 3HA and a skillmod of 30% I dont think you will ever notice a difference anyway.

If the skillmod works according to theory, it doesnt mean its alway good to use. I have implemented the attachments in the Entropedia weaponchart, you can play around with it there. You will see that adding attachments results in lower eco in many situations. You can also see the actualy difference they would make, which is quiet small, to give you an impression of how hard it is to test this difference.

Anyhow, unless travis decides to publish those tests, its not realy of any use to discuss it further. I am still not conviced of the effect of attachments, and it will require a very well performed test to convince me.

HI,

Just adding a thought that may have no relevance.

The scopes/sights are listed as having a "skill modification", but with no explanation as to what the "skill modification" does.
They might as well say "Potato factor 15%", as "skill modification 15%".

Perhaps what they do is modify the rate at which you gain skill, as you are better able to aim using a laser sight or scope, and so "learn" faster.

This one is hard to test, as the rate at which skills are gained changes depending on the skill level of the tester.

Doing 2,000 shots with a scope, and then 2,000 without one will give more skill on the first test, as the skill levels were lower.
Doing 2,000 shots without a scope, and the 2,000 with a scope might still give more skill on the first test, as the skill slowdown off-set the advantage the scope gave.

The only way to get a reliable test would be to create a new avi, do 2,000 shots, and record the skill gains.
Then create another new avi, and re- do the test.

As it's also accepted/suggested that the mob you hunt affects the skills you gain, the test would have to be done several times, with new avi's each time, with the hunting restricted (as much as possible) to one type of mob only.

Personally I own no laser sights.
I use Scopes because EU does not have Binoculars, nto for any real or imaginary "gains" i may get in performance or skills.

you guys got it all wrong,

The skillmod given by the attachments isnt for the HA or dammage or range.
It is for the skill gains you receive. You wont have more gains than normal without attachments but the gain is amped with the given % for the points you receive in the skill.

example if you have two abrer sights and one alekz scope you have 27% skillmod, this means you get 27% more per skillgain.
If you need 10 gains to get Handgun 1 point up, you now only need 7,8 gains as every gain is 127%

cheers..