Ways to defeat Sniper at long range

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Hammock

I have a zoom script that lets me zoom in a bit with the weapon. Even though it does small damage, there's still a spray on it, so doesn't need to be deadly accurate, so long as my cross hairs are on him, he's getting hit, where he has to be spot on to inflict any damage.

I'm usually a solly when doing it, so I have way more HP's and armor, and I have rockets I shoot at him to distract him, maybe I'll get lucky and 1 of them will even hit him.

Other than that, it's just strafing side to side unpredictabley to avoid getting hit.

Maybe a hit should cause the sniper to "lose his charge"... if he's hit while charging, it lowers the charge a bit making him have to either get to cover, or fire a lesser charged shot.

I don't know why Bridget has trouble with snipers... most have worse aim than a Stormtrooper.

[TheKing]

Originally Posted by angrypyro

I was wondering what the best way to defeat a sniper from far away was. Other than being a sniper yourself of course.

The things I've tried so far are: Engineer's rail gun and Soldier's rockets
Are there any other methods?
Is the single shotgun effective for this task?

A sniper at distance is a lot like a soldier in an enclosed space, you can try to fight them but you're probably going to lose (if they're any good). In both instances it's best to try to avoid them or to deal with them by getting around them quickly.

It's certainly not fair that some classes are better in certain situations, but quite frankly that's the point of a class-based game.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by TheKing

It's certainly not fair that some classes are better in certain situations, but quite frankly that's the point of a class-based game.

THIS!

[Bridget]

Jesus christ, that argument is so tiring. Let me try and dumb this down for you. Let's say our goal is to produce a list of foods. This isn't just any random list. We want all of the items in the list to adhere to the same principle: They must contain flour. (in context: being most effective at approximately the same ideal ranges as every other class.) Take the following list for example.

Biscuits, Bread, Pasta, Raw Salmon, Pirogies, Cookies

<STORY MODE ENGAGE>

There is an obvious problem with this list. A certain item doesn't adhere to the underlying principle of the list, which is it must contain flour in its preparation. The creator of the list announces the intention to either modify the entry to contain flour (in whatever way possible) or remove the item from the list all together or with a replacement. The solution is made. However, through the serving doors, some amateur chef (you) stomps in.

"Mama mia! You want a' remove 'a the salmon? Sei pazzo! So what if the Salmon is 'a different than the rest 'a the list a'? Bread is a' different than 'a pasta. Pirogi doesn't 'a taste 'a like a' the cookies! They are all a' different food items. That is 'a the point of food variety!"

Then, the list creator decides to counter the chef's argument. He crosses his arms and slowly shakes his head to assure that the argument is not at all compelling. He closes his eyes, sighs lightly, and utters a few words. "The problem is not being inherently different. Sure, salmon is a food like the rest, and different relative to the other items like they are to each other, but. . ." he pauses for a second to gather his thoughts. "The problem is not adhering to the underlying principle which is a goal we set out to achieve: It must contain flour."

Desperate and unable to give up his worthless argument, the amateur chef begins hopping up and down in place in an animated fashion while yelling the same thing over and over as if persistence would win his case for him. "So what! So what! So 'a what!? It's 'a different, but every food 'a on that list is 'a different. You just 'a hate 'a the salmon! Food would not 'a be the same without 'a the salmon! Sei pazzo! Sei pazzo! Mama mia, I am 'a the exhausted."

The list creator shrugs. It's just no use. He turns in place and makes for the exit, leaving the raving lunatic in background to exhaust himself with his words. The stage curtains drop and swing closed. The audience's hands meet and fill the auditorium with applause. The show is a success, everyone goes home satisfied, and the crime rate drops significantly over the next week until a minor incident involving a mistaken order at a fast food chain levels things out again.

THE END.

Summary: The Sniper being inherently different doesn't justify the class. All of the other classes are different, but they all adhere to the same underlying principle of equal opportunity and potential for interaction. The Sniper isn't broken because of his inherent differences (which all classes have relative to one another) but because of the difference in terms of the range in which he fights (all of the classes except Sniper are limited when it comes to long range.)

The Soldier example is terrible. If I am close enough to the Soldier for him to use the splash damage against me with some consistency, then I am differently close enough to defend myself with equal or near equal force. The situation is different when one class can interact with another long before 'another' can get close enough to defend himself. If a Sniper on one side of the map snipes me in the foot, I can't equally defend myself in any practical manner (in terms of returning damage not running like a bitch for cover behind a static prop).

So? The Sniper is goddamn broken, and you know it.

[Raynian]

Just because something is unique does not mean it fits. In a way, every other class is unique - like you've said! - but they're also very similar in terms of engagement, interaction. Soldiers can shoot rockets, but it's really no different from using a shotty or a pipe - works well at close range, decently at medium, and not at all once you get far away.

However! For the sake of argument, I'll pretend like I agree that having a long range attack is fine for this paragraph. If the sniper was just that, a sniper, who really IS helpless when an enemy gets all up in his face, then I wouldn't have as much an issue. But that's not the case. The sniper is just as efficient at killing enemies that are near him, as he is at long distance. Let me give some examples. Apologies for the shitty "template".

DM Effectiveness (1-10)
----------------
Class Long Medium Short
Scout 1 1 3
Medic 2 4 7
Demoman* 2* 4* 9
HWG 2 3 8 (he sucks too much for 9/10)
Sniper 8 8 9

*Demoman have pipes, obviously. This is fine, though, because there are ways to deal with pipes!

Rockets will not hit at long range. Shotties will do maybe 3 damage. Nails are a joke. The sniper rifle, which is a hitscan weapon, will do a -minimum- of 45 damage (compare this to the sshotty, which will do about equivalent damage at close range). Charging will quickly put it up. Headshots do double. A mid-charged headshot will gib anyone except for soldiers and heavies, but one more hit will do the job! And this is still from across the entire map.

But we've discussed this! Of course we have, so let me get to why I rated the sniper a 9 at close range. First off, realize that comparatively, he's not at as much an advantage - 9v7 against medics, compared to 8v2 before. But he's still ahead of them.

Why? He keeps the sniper rifle, which is just as strong as it is when he's aiming across the map. Even a low-charge headshot will nearly kill a medic, which you can then finish off with a grenade (which you conveniently can carry four of) or couple of AR bursts. And you can shoot the sniper rifle about twice a second! That's almost as fast as the sshotty. The only downside is that you have to stop while firing, but with how easy it is to stop in place in FF, that's not as much of an issue as it should be. And you can charge up, don't forget! So when that pesky soldier or medic shows his head, slug him. It's easier to aim that close, too!

Another thing he has going for him is his ridiculously fast run speed. 300 base? That's only twenty slower than the medic. Faster than any other class that would be juking the sniper. (Plus legshots!) When someone's on him, he can just whip out his AR or nailgun and dance back to spawn. That's really goddamn frustrating, by the way, trying to deal with a sniper who just sits outside spawn.

He's also got about 130 total hit points, when you factor in armor (I realize that not all the armor will be "used" by the time the sniper is dead). Not much? Well, sure, comparatively, but it's enough to soak up a nearby grenade and a sshotty. Or a couple of rockets. If the sniper gets a preemptive shot on a medic or demo, he'll be equal or ahead of them on health and can just AR them.

So this entire section, what was the point of it? Well, see, each class is unique. I fully agree with you! But each other class, while different, follows the general principle of "weak at long range, decent mid, stronger up close" (barring scout, of course). If the sniper were fine, he'd be "strong long, weak close". Or vice versa. Having the sniper be the best at all ranges does not work.

There are ways around other classes. If a demo is playing yard, it's not too tough to get past him. He will not be killing nearly as many people as a sniper would. When he dies, he needs time to get back into "position" (in this case, the yard for his dickery). Plus, even WITHOUT bhopping or concing, a couple of newbs would be able to split up and be able to get into the base, or juke him together and still get through the yard.

A sniper can just peg them both. Even if they do make it past him, his defense has a wallhack on those players, not to forget the damage from the slugs.

What about that soldier who's really good at guarding a choke? Well, simple. Pick a tougher O class, like a medic or soldier, and take him down. This is a great example to point out, because you're overcoming someone and working towards the objective - capturing the flag! Can't get past him? Look for other ways around the base, nearly all maps have divergences once you get past the yard.

But not many maps have multiple ways through a yard, or have a "choke" (really more of a large open area at the end, like redgiant) where snipers congregate. Take 2fort. The yard's right there for everyone to see. There's the water, sure! But if an enemy sniper is making you use the water, he's making you take three times as long to get into the enemy base. Mission accomplished. It's ridiculous.

What about having someone on sniper duty? Well, usually it takes several people to quell the sniper threat. And if you have people focusing on just the snipers, then they're not playing the game it's meant to be played. It might be fun for the occasional person to spend a while hunting snipers, but it slows gameplay down. And smart snipers will retreat to the inside of their base, such as the top of the ramp on aardvark or the batts/fr in well, causing a DvDfest. Whatever happens, it stagnates the game.

The sniper rifle is a hitscan weapon with a minimum power of 45, quickly ups, doubles on headshot, has crippling and radiotag, and no cone of fire (aim variance). If you're speed sniping, you can fire one shot per two single shotties, or about two shots per three super shotties. Sure, if you're tapping people with the single shotty (better at long range) long distance for three damage, you'll eventually kill them. It'll only take you about one hundred shells to kill a soldier. A sniper can take his head off with three well placed shots, or just one that has medium charge. "A little faster" is a bit of an understatement.

Also see; above point on how sniper can also work well at close range.

For most maps, there's only one way through the yard, unless you take twice/threefold the time using some exotic scenic route (the water). Okay, a sniper won't kill you every time. But a sniper is a lot more of a threat than a spawn camper is. And more aggravating, since there's no simple way to counter snipers.

Four soldiers/medics/heavies/whatevers coming to your base on 2fort? A pair of snipers will drop two of those guys, and severely weaken the other two (and tag/cripple). Great! Now the two that never had a chance will try to cross again, but since it's just those two, they're dead meat. Every time until they get more people. Scouts may get by, even without conc/bhop, but since we're talking about pubs, they have no chance against a SG in the base.

Go another way? Already said it, if there's more than one way through a yard, it's usually not worth it anyways. Counter the snipers? Great, now you've got a need for players on sniper duty. Fantastic.

Since the offense is so broken up, the other team gets pissed at attacking and goes D. DvD!

By design, the class is not intended to capture flags. It's intended to shoot people. I could say that fatties and engies cap flags a lot, and for engies, it's probably true. And great, class variance, whatever. But come on. Be honest. Most snipers sit on their batts/in their base and play yard dickery. If they're moving around, it just pisses off the "sniper duty" players even more, since now they have to hunt for their target.

If they kill someone chasing the flag carrier from a distance, it's a letdown. They wouldn't be focusing on the sniper, if they even knew he was there - at least if a soldier's trying to cover a carrier, you can try to dance around him since you know where he is.

The thing is, the sniper loses nothing at close range. If anything, he becomes more accurate. When you have the preemptive shot that deals, oh, on average, 100 damage for low/mid charge, and instagibs at higher charges, being in proximity doesn't mean anything. Sure, other classes become more effective, but it doesn't discount the fact that the sniper still has an instagib weapon at his disposal, grenades, fast speed, and special abilities.

[Iggy]

Unless you have either incredible luck, or an aimbot, I dispute alot of the above post.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Jesus christ, that argument is so tiring. Let me try and dumb this down for you. Let's say our goal is to produce a list of foods. This isn't just any random list. We want all of the items in the list to adhere to the same principle: They must contain flour. (in context: being most effective at approximately the same ideal ranges as every other class.)

This argument is all well and good, but the question then becomes, "Why must all the things in the list contain flour?"

That's where your argument becomes irrelevant, and it's also when we enter a much grayer and potentially more subjective area. What makes containing flour a non-arbitrary distinction? Why is it important that all the things contain flour?

In terms of design goals of the FF dev team, I can say we have decided that we want combat to last a decent length of time, we want combat to be interactive, and that we don't want one player (or team) having fun at the cost of another. I think it'd be hard to argue that the sniper doesn't in some way break all of those. But that stuff could also be described as arbitrary and/or subjective (though there is reasoning behind each of them).*

At this point, the discussion may only be able to be cyclical and subjective. But, I keep wanting to go back to a post I made in the Sniper doesn't belong thread that I don't feel got too much discussion but I still feel strongly about. It might have flaws, but I'm not sure they've been pointed out (CUJO pointed out one potential one but I think it can be rebutted). If sniping as a combat style negatively affects mulching as a combat style while mulching does not affect sniping, then we just simply can't have both in the same game. Is any part of that not true?

* While skimming the Sniper doesn't belong thread, I found a post where I said basically the exact same thing

[Bridget]

When the playing field is level, it's nice to know that when you win, that you did so because you outperformed the enemy in some respect when he was just as likely to outperform you in the same respect. When the playing field is level, and you lose, it's reassuring to know that all it took for you to win was to have done better than the enemy. This is satisfactory because win or lose, there's positive feedback.

Well, in situations where the playing field is obviously favoring one side over the other (such as one class being exceptionally good at long range leading to situations where it's able to interact highly with enemies that can barely defend themselves) people get pissed off knowing that they're losing because the enemy has an unfair advantage and not because they necessarily outperformed them. Hell, it's even annoying when you win, because you feel there was some luck involved to get past the unfair advantage of the other player.

At-least, that's my explanation for why the Sniper class is fucking gay. I want to beat a Chess grandmaster playing in his prime with fair rules. I want one move to his one move. I want ten seconds to his ten seconds. I want him playing at peak performance, so that when I win, I know I bettered him. I don't want to know I won because he was holding back or because I got lucky nor do I want to lose because he had an unfair advantage. I want to lose because I didn't do good, not because I was unable to do good.

Does this suggest having to make all the classes the same? No, because I think what defines the 'level playing field' is range restrictions. The classes should have to be at a certain range (about the same for all classes) to deal their most potent damage while also putting themselves at risk for the enemy's most potent damage. You can have classes interact differently within this range. It should come down to how well you utilize your chosen class here that leads to win or lose. It's how things work now, naturally, with most of the classes. There would have to be tweaks to ensure better balance. Projectiles would need damage falloff. Certain items would become useless with range. Well, that's a given and your job.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Well, in situations where the playing field is obviously favoring one side over the other (such as one class being exceptionally good at long range leading to situations where it's able to interact highly with enemies that can barely defend themselves) people get pissed off knowing that they're losing because the enemy has an unfair advantage and not because they necessarily outperformed them. Hell, it's even annoying when you win, because you feel there was some luck involved to get past the unfair advantage of the other player.

At-least, that's my explanation for why the Sniper class is fucking gay. I want to beat a Chess grandmaster playing in his prime with fair rules. I want one move to his one move. I want ten seconds to his ten seconds. I want him playing at peak performance, so that when I win, I know I bettered him. I don't want to know I won because he was holding back or because I got lucky nor do I want to lose because he had an unfair advantage. I want to lose because I didn't do good, not because I was unable to do good.

The two above quoted sections contradict each other. A chess grand-master is going to have an inherent advantage over even an advanced player(I doubt you are even that good, tbh). If you really want to best a master sniper, then learn how to snipe. It IS the same rules... your sniper is no different than anyone elses, except in skill level. If you put a pawn against a queen, pawn will lose almost every time(unless supported by other pieces). To continue the chess analogy, It's possible for a pawn to beat a king, but only with the proper support.

You propose crippling the sniper based on "your" lack of skill. A queen can move across the board in a straight line, should a better player only be allowed to move his queen 4 spaces to compensate for your skill level? Of course not.

You use your pieces to their best advantage... because each has it's function. Sniper is there to cover wide open spaces. His effectiveness is based soley on the skill of the player.

Yes, it (along with other classes) need to be tweeked, but it's not straight up broken.

[Hammock]

There's nothing wrong with his analogy. He wants to beat a chess grand master on the same terms as anyone else, same rules same everything. That way when he wins, he actually beat the guy. Yes the master will have THE advantage, because of his skill, but he won't have an unfair advantage.

He doesn't want to play a chess grand master who wins all the time because the master has a pool cue he uses to poke people in the eyes to gain an unfair advantage of distracting his opponents. While he can not have a pool cue.

[Bridget]

It really baffles me how people just can't understand how having one exceptional long range class in a game full of classes restricted to closer ranges is out-of-place and broken. Ideal combat situations should have, regardless of individual strength or weaknesses, both players able to interact at their best. A Scout against a Heavy at close range is an easy win for the Heavy, but the Heavy's ability to interact at his best never once negates the Scout's ability to interact at his best no matter how piss-poor it is. Whereas, considering Sniper is an exceptional class that does well at all ranges, including long range where every other class is heavily unfavored, there's always going to be a damn scenario where the Sniper can interact at his best while his opponent can only interact at a tiny fraction of his best.

This is just a rehash of the locked Sniper thread. I really don't want to have to repeat the same fucking arguments over and over to people who will obviously never understand it no matter how persistent I am. Nothing's going to get done about this lame-duck class nor is this game coming back from the dead, so I don't see why I waste my time. If you guys want to snipe, go play fucking counter-strike. It's so sad when a generic class and stupid unfair mechanic available in any modern video game is ruining a unique game-mode that you can only get from a few dying sources.

You can enjoy playing the class with an unfair advantage. I'll continue playing classes that actually have to take a risk to get reward. I'll be reassured of my skill knowing my enemy could have killed me, but I actually bettered him through experience or faster reflex, instead of merely getting my kills handed to me because the people I killed in one-hit (another broken mechanic that doesn't inspire fights to be influenced by individual skill) were across the map unable to defend themselves at my level. HURP DURP

I'm done arguing. I can channel this toward something more productive, maybe somewhere where the development team isn't full of slackers who dance around problems trying to convince themselves and others there are no problems or whine about 'having to please two communities' while violating that rule and pleasing the minor community at the expense of the majority. Maybe wherever I take this, the development team won't spend patch after patch nerfing an already heavily underpowered class (Engineer) then go 'HURR WHAT? ENGY IS FINE." when the community rightfully complains. Maybe they won't try to rationalize the truth where I go with piss-poor explanations like "X is fine. You just suck. Play competitively." Maybe they won't say stupid shit like "Ha, that poll is unspecific. You would need about 8,000 more options. (which would only serve to make the poll more complicated and fuel the delusion that the community can't be sure about anything)"

In short, maybe, I can go somewhere else that doesn't suck.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU- </nerdrage>

[TheKing]

*NOTE* for the short version of this entire argument, skip down to the last paragraph

Bridget, we've been over this. Your list of foods analogy is no more valid simply because you switched the foods on the list. You're arguing over a difference of degree. Each class is different from all other classes, and you just picked range as your 'game breaking' difference. That's fine, but your argument completely comes down to "In my opinion the sniper doesn't belong" - there's NO (ZERO) objectivity to your argument, it's completely 100% based on opinion. In my opinion the spy is more different from the other classes than the sniper and some people think it's the pyro, and those arguments are no more or less invalid than yours. Further, in your analogy I'm pretty sure you would be the raving lunatic repeating themselves in some form of an Italian accent having responded with pages of dead-horse beating to the only three sentences that I've posted on these forums in months.

Raynian, IMO that list of effective ranges among classes is outrageous and also completely subjective. Mine would have the sniper with an advantage at close range ONLY when battling a scout and would probably be about even with the medic.

This game doesn't and isn't supposed to have a level playing field among different classes across all situations. Depending on the situation one class will ALWAYS have some advantage over another. In your analogy it's like playing a grandmaster at chess but with each player having a different assortment/arrangement of pieces when the game starts. You're still playing the same game (and the grandmaster is damn good at chess, so he does have a skill advantage regardless of how his pieces are arranged) but someone's going to have an advantage based on how the game is constructed. That's how the TF genre (and any class-based game) is SUPPOSED to be. The only people who start on an even playing field are those who have the same arrangement of pieces (i.e. are playing the same class).

Originally Posted by squeek.

we want combat to last a decent length of time
we want combat to be interactive
and that we don't want one player (or team) having fun at the cost of another.

Not only does the list itself seem subjective, but so does how each class applies to it. I think that spies definitely break each of those items more than a sniper.. hell I would even argue that conc grenades break each of these items.

Regarding your other post (which was well laid out and I was disappointed that I didn't get to respond before the thread was locked):

A major flaw in your argument is that you're trying to simplify the issue by categorizing all aspects of this game into 'mulch' and 'sniper' and then weighing the possibilities included in each style. This is a gross oversimplification because it neglects all of the (very very numerous) other styles of play in the game. In some way, engies, spies, scouts, snipers, demos, and medics all break what your definition of mulching is (that's more than half of the game's classes). You can't weigh mulching against sniping only, for the argument to work you must weigh mulching vs everything else that impacts mulching but isn't. At that point, to eliminate either one would be a giant problem for the game.

Further, your argument is flawed in that it assumes that the sniping and mulching style of play can't coexist. It's OK that sniping interrupts mulching (although I would definitely argue that it's a two-way street here and mulching impacts sniping too, it just depends on the field of play.. try thinking anything except aardvark) and it's certainly not the only thing that does. I think that conc grenades do a great deal more to interrupt mulching than does sniping - in most cases it completely ends whatever fight was going on while the offensive class slips away (or it ensures that no mulching will take place at all by propelling the offensive class past whatever battle was about to take place). Again, this isn't limited to a couple of instances where mulching is negatively affected by non-mulchers, more than half of the classes in this game break what you define as mulching in some way.

Basically, to sum up this entire post and probably the entire 50 page long thread about sniping - the argument is COMPLETELY, 100% subjective. The ONLY argument that can be made is "In my opinion, sniping breaks the game". There is NEVER an "objectively, sniping breaks the game" argument and there really can't be. It's all a matter of opinion and degree.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Hammock

There's nothing wrong with his analogy. He wants to beat a chess grand master on the same terms as anyone else, same rules same everything. That way when he wins, he actually beat the guy. Yes the master will have THE advantage, because of his skill, but he won't have an unfair advantage.

He doesn't want to play a chess grand master who wins all the time because the master has a pool cue he uses to poke people in the eyes to gain an unfair advantage of distracting his opponents. While he can not have a pool cue.

He can have a pool cue.... that's my point. He can play sniper and get good at it, or he can sit there and cry like a fucking newborn about how unfair life is. Jesus, he's the epitomy of America right now.... don't adapt to your surrounding, just sit there and bitch and hope your mommy comes along to wipe away your tears.

[Bridget]

Adapting is playing a manly class that puts himself at risk to get the reward. Failing to adapt is getting butthurt you get demolished by real classes, so you fall back on Sniper as an easy way to get kills. Durr, so challenging, let me kill people from across the map when they can't fight back. I am so adaptive. Look at me. Hurrr

[Iggy]

So..... play sniper and shoot back? Or is your sniper rifle not the same as everyone elses?

Edit: Or do you just plain suck at the class, and like to bitch about it to everyone who will listen?

[Bridget]

Your suggestion is a vicious cycle. Here's a problem. Let's fix it with a problem. That will encourage a problem. We can fix that with a problem. I'd rather the Sniper class get trashed then having to lower myself to their shitty standards to act as a counter toward a class that has no business in this game except as an attraction to pussies. I'll never play that god awful class with any ounce of sincerity.

[TheKing]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Adapting is playing a manly class that puts himself at risk to get the reward.

If this is your problem then I believe your gripe here should be with the class that has the most advantageous risk:reward ratio. That would be the engineer, who can literally sit in the back of spawn at zero risk (perhaps AFK) while his gun is still killing people.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by TheKing

If this is your problem then I believe your gripe here should be with the class that has the most advantageous risk:reward ratio. That would be the engineer, who can literally sit in the back of spawn at zero risk while still killing people.

The Engineer doesn't kill people in that situation. His gun kills people, and while doing so, adheres to the reward:risk principle. In fact, the gun is at a disadvantage as it can't fight back against enemies outside of its range. The gun is going to go down quickly if the Engineer is away from it. It's totally impractical, much like a Demoman detonating pipes from across the map, where as the Sniper killing people across the map happens fairly often and is pretty damn practical. I think there could be a problem with an Engineer who sets up a gun and hides in spawn, but let's not pretend its anywhere as problematic as the Sniper as a whole.

[TheKing]

Originally Posted by Bridget

The Engineer doesn't kill people in that situation. His gun kills people

Funny then that the kills are attributed not to the gun, but to the player. An SG is a weapon in the same way as a pipe trap. This game seems to adhere to the NRA's principle: guns don't kill people, people kill people. If your argument is about risk to reward, the engineer is clearly the class that needs changing first.

However, I am proud of you for abandoning your flawed logical appeal and trying with the emotional appeal of 'snipers are pussies'. At least this one you can back up on some level.

[Bridget]

It's a irrelevant point on an irrelevant k/d ratio. It's not game-breaking.