You hypocrite - you didn't even address my points from my previous post! Fine, here we go one last time, just to hammer home how you FAIL to read my posts, FAIL to understand what I'm saying (because you don't want to), and yet accuse me of failure to comprehend? That is one of your tactics par excellance. Listen. In my line of work, if I "couldn't read" and had "horrible reading comprehension" I wouldn't last a day. You are (yet again) throwing things back at me as a poor debating tactic (you've done it before).

The fundamental issue here is that you are confused about your own words and your own argument. First of all, I already quoted you in my last reply. Did. You. Not. Read. That? How dare you accuse me of poor reading comprehension, you utter troll?

Here, I will copy and paste that bit from my last reply, which you totally ignored:

---snip--- You want me to re-read and quote you, fine I will, you said this early on: "...most players will fair[sic] better (regardless of aiming ability) with other PR archetypes, namely Nirwen's given the current spread of weapons available." If this is not saying "Nirwen's is better" then I don't know what is, and neither do you, short of redefining the meaning of some elementary words of the English language. And this is itself contradicted by other comments of yours, namely, "better ttk =/= what is better" (since the basis of the first comment was your TTK argument). This is demonstrating your self-contradictory arguments as clearly as it is possible to do. ---snip---

This is what you absolutely fail to comprehend: you say that you never claimed Nirwen's is better, yet you absolutely do:

""...most players will fair[sic] better (regardless of aiming ability)" --Saithas

For most players to fare better, regardless of aiming ability, with one gun versus another, MEANS that the gun is BETTER. Period. So yes, you have absolutely been saying Nirwen's has been better. More examples of this abound. Here's one:

"My whole statement revolves around what is gun is capable of, regardless of the situation. Nirwen's archetype PRs are capable of achieving the same ttk with head shots, a faster ttk with bodyshots, and a faster ttk with a mix of the two in some instances (slower in others, depends on ratio of headshots to bodyshots)." --Saithas

This is in direct contradiction to:

"What has a better ttk =/= what is better. What is truly better will come down to factors such as damage, recoil, flinch, feels, perks. But just because a gun kills faster does not mean its better and I've been saying that since the beginning."

(emphasis mine in both cases)

How can you simultaneously have a faster TTK regardless of the situation - meaning, regardless of anything else, be able to kill faster - and also say that what is "truly better" will depend on other things, i.e., on the situation? I have never seen someone spout contradictions so willingly and repeatedly.

Here is an exercise to clear the confusion in your mind about this: define what it means for a Destiny gun to be "better" than another. Is it being able to have a faster TTK regardless of the context? (Ultimate way of one gun being "better" - which you claimed at one point). Is it having a faster TTK in a stationary context but not when moving (Hawksaw will tend to do better here, considering cover and flinch, etc)? That is another way of looking at "better" that is totally different from the first (it's weaker and more context-dependent). Is it "What has a better ttk =/= what is better. What is truly better will come down to factors such as damage, recoil, flinch, feels, perks" (as you also claim later on) which is yet another tier lower in absolute scale of "better" in that it's tremendously context-dependent? Oh, I guess I did the exercise for you. But you should think it through for yourself and realize that you are using totally different conceptions for gun performance and making apples to oranges comparisons in total and blissful ignorance.

Sorry, you really have failed here. Please learn to read people's posts fully and carefully, learn to address all points and not skip things, and be clear in your own mind about the concepts you are using as part of your arguments so that you don't rely on the shifty tactic of jumping between different conceptions implicitly to try to throw off your opponent. (This is an exercise in improving your ability to comprehend and use logic.)

If you truly have anything else to say at this point without carefully addressing EVERYTHING above, then I will not reply no matter what. But I strongly suspect at this point that you are being a willful troll, and nothing more.