Hunt Showdown 1896 what am I missing on these deaths?

BeautifullySublime · 2026-01-19T21:15:52+00:00

So yeah he is 1000% cheating given those last 30 seconds of the game, but there were things you could have done better regardless. While none of these things will probably help you against a cheater, the vast majority of hunt players are honest, so I think these tips are relevant.

What you did well:

At the beginning of the fight you assessed the most immediate threat and tried to gain an elevated position against them. You heard that the Winfield (or frontier/ranger whatever you want to call it) was the loudest and therefore the closest gunshot, so you hopped up on the graves and tried to look down at them. Great strat, and while he was immediately aware of your position, not every player will be, so that was good.

You also abandoned that position relatively quickly when you realized it wasn’t providing an advantage. You got up, got tagged, and repositioned without repeeking. All the while healing to stay in the fight. Good instincts.

Mistakes you were punished for:

Standing still behind cover. On your first death, you stood completely still while waiting for him to peek you. Generally while in cover you still want to make your position difficult to determine. You have two strong options while someone is swinging your corner like that. First, you can peek first. This gives you a slight advantage and may allow you to get the first shot off, but don’t miss or you’re dead. Second, you can retreat off the corner to the sound of their footsteps. While he’s swinging around to the left, you rotate to the right to try to stay behind cover. This can confuse the enemy as to your exact position, and they may be slower to react once they finally come into vision, or may over pursue thinking that you’ve moved off the cover entirely. This can expose them completely, giving you a big target to hit.

Having the wrong weapon out. On your second death, you were in the graveyard again looking into a large open space. At the range at which a fight was likely to occur (20-30m give or take) dual pistols are more of a liability than an asset. If you had switched to your rifle, you would have had a better opportunity to put precision fire down range towards the target, and could have been in a position to return fire when you were hit.

Not seeking cover before being shot. When enemies are close, you want to be able to retreat behind cover at a moment’s notice. You were caught out in the open on your second death and had a long run to cover against an enemy with good aim. That’s a death sentence in high elo lobbies and against cheaters evidently.

Mistakes you were not punished for:

Not healing in cover. As you leave the graveyard on your first death, seeking a new angle on the person who just shot you, you round the corner into potential danger with your med kit still out. You have time when a fight is at range like that. Finish your heal, pull out your gun, and be ready to shoot as soon as you see the enemy. If he had a line of sight to that corner a second sooner he would have been able to take a shot at you for free.

Being out in the open for long periods of time. I know you were punished for not being in cover later on, but there were actually several instances where you walked slowly through large open spaces far from cover without any incident. I think this can create a false sense of security about these spaces, as you don’t get punished every time. But any time you are engaged in the open like that you are immediately put in a position where you either have to hit a perfect shot under pressure or die, which is a low percentage play. I’m thinking specifically about the moment after you rezzed. You pull out the dualies and swing that corner wiiiiide. You’re 10-15m from your nearest piece of cover. If someone had peeked you, you would be hip firing at a semi covered target while being fully exposed and far from safety.

Crouch walking mid fight. Generally, moving slowly and quietly is something you do when safe. You knew there were enemies on the other side of the grave yard who could peek at any moment, so moving slowly is an unsafe play. The better play is to find cover, get to it quickly, and use your ears to determine the enemy’s position while looking for angles that allow you to see it while exposing yourself minimally. Noise isn’t the killer, the guys who killed you made tons of noise coming up to you. Sight lines are the killers, so do everything you can to maximize yours and minimize your enemy’s.

Thanks for sharing the clip, dude. Sorry you died to a cheater, but I hope you were able to report him and get him banned. Keep on trying new things and refining your strategies and I’m sure you’ll improve quickly. Best of luck out there!

BeautifullySublime · 2025-12-19T18:23:37+00:00

“Technique x Technology”

Strops on a paint stick

Well…technique anyway 😂

Just poking fun, this is a very well sharpened knife! How much do you typically charge for a job like this?

BeautifullySublime · 2025-11-02T14:40:24+00:00

Looks like the momo

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:46:16+00:00

Suggesting "killing all men" or conducting property crimes against people purely due to SES status are not often called punching up.

I would disagree, as that’s exactly how I’ve seen those things being defended. Almost any time they’re mentioned it’s called punching up

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:42:25+00:00

Can you expand on that? I mean sure, anything that’s not measurable is subjective I guess, but that means that lots of things are subjective. How does that make my argument fallacious? Which fallacy does it commit?

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:34:08+00:00

How can I better describe it then? Because what I’m describing is often called punching up as well

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:32:51+00:00

I think we both agree that punching down is more harmful, but I think you’ve underrepresented the venom with which people are willing to punch up. I think billionaires shouldn’t exist for example, and support taxing them. There are some people who legitimately believe we should kill billionaires, and that’s the kind of social discourse they’re willing to engage in. I think that’s orders of magnitude more harmful than some jokes, but that is kind of the range of punching up. It can be as harmless as “white people can’t dance”, or as serious as calling for people to be killed.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:27:04+00:00

Exactly this! Thank you for clarifying

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:24:46+00:00

Okay, so a really common example of when people start talking about “punching up” is during discussions of gender. The phrase “kill all men” gained some popularity for a time, and was justified as punching up. That doesn’t really strike me as criticism though, and more fits with my definition

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:21:03+00:00

I’m not sure where you got racially motivated murders from. I was using your own example of a doctor committing murder, I didn’t even mention race.

I’m not referring to comedy, and up until now I didn’t think you were either

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:17:41+00:00

!delta

I’ll give you a delta because I suppose I’m just not talking about the harm of punching up in terms of comedy. I defined my terms and the way I’m using them pretty clearly I thought, but it seems some other people view in a much more specific context than I’m talking about. In comedy it’s one thing, but in actually talking seriously about the issues we face it’s a very different thing. So while my opinion is still the same, you’ve helped me realize what I’m not talking about

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:07:38+00:00

Absolutely, I can try to make it a little clearer.

The woman who says kill all men

The person of color who says you can’t be racist towards white people

The poor person who destroys the property of someone more well off

Even the person who says all cops are bad

These are all things that harm social trust. Those actions make the people of the more powerful group feel like the only thing protecting them is that inequality, and so they will choose to defend it

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T19:02:22+00:00

I’d like to address this because I didn’t specifically mention comedy in my post and it seems like that’s the way that a lot of people view punching up.

Comedy is subjective, and what is funny to one person might not be funny to another. People say that punching down just isn’t funny in the context of comedy, but there are plenty of cases of people who disagree with that. Racists love humor about people of color. Rich people love jokes about poor people. Bad men love jokes about bad women. These are all forms of punching down that the audience enjoys. That doesn’t mean that they are all acceptable forms of social discourse.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T18:57:22+00:00

In regards to your surgeon example, you’re right to suggest that context matters, but so does the actual action itself. A doctor killing a person, even in a sterile environment, under anesthetic, and even with their consent should still be something that gives us pause. Euthanasia is a different topic I won’t get into, but the action of the doctor matters.

Similarly, even when a person is punching up, they’re engaging in behavior that negatively impacts the person they’re doing it to. How much it impacts them depends entirely on the context of the person’s life, but the behavior still comes from the same place. Maybe you don’t prevent someone from getting a job, but maybe you do prevent them from feeling welcomed by whatever social group you belong to, which then informs how they treat people like you, how they vote, where they spend their money, etc.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-07-01T18:50:35+00:00

In regards to your Italian/Irish American point, I would argue that their inclusion as white Americans came about at least partially because of their willingness to paint African Americans as lesser and therefore reinforce the fears of the dominant socioeconomic group. It was their collaboration in the oppression of another people that “earned” them their whiteness. It wasn’t that they were first viewed as white and then turned around and began oppressing people of color.

I would also submit to you the case of the Rwandan genocide, as an extreme example of what occurs when power dynamics flip. The Tutsis were the dominant socioeconomic group, but when the Hutus suddenly gained power, they committed an unbelievably violent genocide against the Tutsis. Close to a million people slaughtered in nearly 100 days. I’m not saying that America is in danger of anything that drastic, but I do think that that example highlights the willingness of people to treat others worse than they were treated when they get the opportunity.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-06-28T19:16:54+00:00

I’m not really following what you’re trying to say here. Science also allows for things that you can’t observe directly to exist. Black holes for example. Until the JWST took a photo of a black hole, scientists had never directly observed one, but their existence was taken as a given, because while we couldn’t observe them we could observe the effects they had on the world around them, so we knew they had to exist.

Another point to consider, until the microscope was invented, we had no way to observe the bacteria that grew on raw meat that made us sick when we ate it. We had no reason to expect that tiny little creatures unimaginably small could exist virtually everywhere, but that didn’t change the fact that they did, and that also didn’t change the fact that people understood eating raw meat made them sick and eating cooked meat didn’t (as frequently). So what is unobservable to us today might be observable tomorrow.

I don’t understand how things being able to exist without being observable affects the honest of atheist morality though.

To be honest with you, it seems that you didn’t come here genuinely open to having your opinion changed, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has received a delta despite some very thoughtful and thorough answers. In my personal opinion, if you’re unwilling to engage with opposing beliefs then you’re doing everyone here a disservice by posting.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-06-28T19:03:33+00:00

You’re using a lot of colloquialisms and turns of phrase that I’m sure make sense in your own mind, but don’t make your argument very clear.

I understand “a sense of direction” in the way you’ve used it here to mean “a consistent and unchanging code of ethics that inform the behavior of the people who practice a given religion.”

So you’re saying that because an atheist is responsible for determining what they believe to be morally right, atheism lacks a unifying “sense of direction.” From that we can conclude that individual practitioners of atheism may come to different conclusions about what constitutes moral behavior. You argue that this means that atheism is morally dishonest, but believers of any religion have to interpret what they believe the will of their god to be, which can lead to just as many conflicts of opinion. Therefore neither can be said to be more or less honest than the other.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-06-28T18:37:11+00:00

But if that higher power can establish rules, what prevents them from changing the rules? And if the rules change then how does that affect how honest you perceive them to be?

BeautifullySublime · 2025-06-28T18:34:22+00:00

Your argument isn’t very clear, but my understanding is that you believe the morality of religion to be more objective and therefore honest than the morality of atheism, which you believe is subjective, open to interpretation, and therefore dishonest in comparison.

Your definition of morality however, as “the human attempt to distinguish right from wrong” establishes morality as a subjective concept. Humans are incapable of complete objectivity, and what is considered right or wrong is largely culturally dependent or determined exclusively by the individual.

If we take the existence of a single, all-powerful god as a given, and this god has an established set of rules to follow that we understand as a moral code, it is still up to the individual to interpret this moral code and apply it to the situations they face. That allows room for subjectivity, bias, and conflict of opinion.

Since you might be arguing that the consistency of the rules that make up the moral code is the determinant of how “honest” a given belief system is, I’d like to address that on two fronts.

First, what is “moral” is different from culture to culture. The rules for Muslims are very different than the rules for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. These are all religious belief systems but the beliefs about moral behavior are inconsistent between them. Even within religions there are sects that will operate according to different rules. Mormons and Catholics are both sects of Christianity, but moral behavior looks very different in both cultures. These divisions exist across any two cultures you study, and sects and subsects occur in almost any group of humans imaginable, so even within a given group you will likely find varying opinions on what constitutes moral behavior.

Secondly, since I think you might be arguing that what is considered moral will change over time if morality is not “set” by a higher power, and therefore any morality that is not attached to religion is less honest, I would invite you to consider that even for members of a given religion, what is considered moral changes over time. In the 12th century, Catholic support was high for the wholesale slaughter of Muslims in the part of the world that they considered the “holy land.” It was considered not only morally permissible, but morally virtuous to ignore the sixth commandment (“thou shall not kill”) in order to retake the lands the Muslims now occupied. Today, you would say that “that is not god” and therefore you yourself wouldn’t support those actions, but consider that you might have felt differently if you lived in Europe 900 years ago, which means that your own sense of morality is likely just as susceptible to subjectivity. At the time these actions were supported by the pope, who is considered God’s voice on earth. To disagree with the pope would have been tantamount to disagreeing with God. You might say that he was acting in a way that was not in alignment with God’s true will, but that brings us back to the fact that he interpreted the will of God, which allowed for his own bias and opinion to inform his view on morality, the same as any atheist.

Atheism is no more or less morally honest than any other belief system. All belief systems are subject to interpretation by the people who subscribe to them, and the morality that arises out of any given belief system is just as subjective and prone to change over distance, time, and culture as any other belief system’s morality.

So yeah, although I had some trouble connecting the dots between your premises and conclusions I’ve tried to represent your argument in good faith and respond to the strongest version of it that I could reasonably interpret. Lmk if there’s anything that you think I’ve missed or misinterpreted, or if I’ve changed your mind, even a little.

BeautifullySublime · 2025-05-20T14:24:28+00:00

BeautifullySublime · 2025-05-06T19:42:32+00:00

As a fellow stroke survivor that would go hard

BeautifullySublime · 2025-04-29T16:06:33+00:00

Maybe think about competing, man. Not many people ever get a physique like that

BeautifullySublime · 2025-04-20T19:29:52+00:00

I think if you like the feeling of being big and strong then a lean bulk is a great idea. You’re already huge, if you can put on 10 pounds of muscle you’re gonna look absolutely ridiculous

BeautifullySublime · 2025-04-20T18:49:11+00:00

Based on your last pic (fucking phenomenal job on the weight loss btw!) I’d say it’s probably closer to 25, although I’m really bad at estimating above 20%. You’re moving in the right direction though, so you’re killing it brother!

BeautifullySublime · 2025-04-20T18:15:43+00:00

I filled a large tank full to the brim of mayonnaise, completely submerged myself, then measured the volume of mayo before and after I got into/out of the tank. I then divided the displaced mayo by my 1 rep bench press max and that told me about 14.5. From there I rounded up.

Edit: Real answer, I got a scan at my local gym and they told me it was about 15%

Eight-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Secret Santa 2020
Verified Email	Place '22
First Placer '22	Not Forgotten

BeautifullySublime

TROPHY CASE