Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
If it flies, it dies™.
Making the SMG's base spread the same as its current second shot isn't exactly the same. The current spread value allows the player to tap-fire. It just won't be like in BF4 where tap-fire and micro-bursting were super dominant. That is the whole point of the First shot SIPS Multiplier. For the SMGs, you can choose between tap-firing slowly to guarantee each hit lands. Or if your target is well within your effective range, you can magdump quite easily. If your second shot is able to hit reasonably well, the low SIPS means all the follow-ups should be able to as well. In between, the player has to figure out the proper burst lengths and timings. Changing this to a low multiplier, high SIPS, high SDEC model would make tap-firing much better than it is now and potentially better than full auto given the scales that these numbers work.
For the LMGs, the negative SIPS combined with the negative multiplier provides a delay that offsets the eventual superb ranged damage output. It's a small window of weakness that enemy players can try to exploit before they are put at a disadvantage. Changing LMGs to standard SIPS and SDEC with a slower fire rate is just going to make them worse.
Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013
Platform: Xbox One
Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos
Reputation modifier: 13
Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)
Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)
PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....
Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.
Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:
Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.
But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.
Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.
Well, technically...
Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).
And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.
In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.
Mind blown.
I... I...
*cries in a corner*
Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:
A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic
A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.
Reload times are wash.
Velocities are wash.
V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).
Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.
The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?
H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.
SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.
And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.
Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry
@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.
FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS
SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.
In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.
The addition of FSSM isn't actually all that different from previous BF titles. It's essentially linear spread increase with the added option of being able to single tap shots at range.
Yes, single tapping shots is not all that effective, and it is not supposed to be effective. At the range where single shots are effective, you're way outside of your SMG's effective range. However, at least you do have the option to hit targets at range now, whereas in previous titles you couldn't, even with tapfire for.
Negative SIPS is a good idea, however, the way it's implemented in BF1 is, IMO, incredibly boring. Without a recoil system that poses any real difficulty, LMGs are quite literally point and click weapons.
In order for negative SIPS to be well implemented, I think there needs to be some sort of recoil system that's far more complicated than the one currently in BF1.
The tapping is too slow to be effective in my experience
SMGs and LMGs have a first shot multiplier applied to spread increase, in the same way BF1 and previous games have a first shot multiplier applied to recoil.
What this means for gameplay is the SMGs are more accurate on their first shot from previous games, but that shot incurs high spread increase, while following shots have very low spread increase. Effectively it's spread increase per burst for SMGs. What this means is that SMGs lose DPS as they make their bursts shorter.
Here's some made up numbers to simply explain the design behind it. Say we have a weapon that takes 1 frame to reset the spread increase of a single shot. Firing a five round burst would mean we'd need 5 frames to recover to min spread. Alternatively we could shoot one shot, spend 1 frame recovering, and repeat that 4 more times. The total time spent is still 5 frames, but all shots were fired at min spread. Why would I ever shoot a longer burst? Microbursting allows for the same effective DPS, while avoiding spread increase.
If instead we apply a first shot spread increase multiplier, say 2 for this example, what happens is this:
For a five round burst it takes 2 frames to recover from the first shot and 1 for each of the following for a total of 6 frames. 5 single shots take 2 frames each to recover for a total of 10 frames. There's now actually a reason to vary burst lengths. Very short bursts or single shots retain their accuracy but require more recovery time. Longer bursts are less accurate, but have higher DPS if they're still accurate enough to hit. This makes these SMGs excellent at close range with longer bursts, and allows them to be accurate enough to get hits with short bursts or single shots at longer ranges but with a DPS reduction that stops them from being too good outside their intended range.
In short, FSSM makes it so microbursting at all ranges isn't the optimal way to use a weapon, and makes using different burst rates at different ranges more effective.
For LMGs it's a little different, spread "increase" per shot is negative, meaning it actually decreases, and the FSSM is also negative, making the first shot's spread positive. The first shot of an LMG will be accurate, but incur a large spread penalty, each successive shot regains accuracy, usually getting back to min spread around the 6th shot.
If it flies, it dies™.
But I find this argument flawed. In that example, you need 9 frames to put out 5 single taps. However in a close enough range, I would magdump you and kill you in 5 frames, and you won't be able to put out your 4th and 5th shot.
If it flies, it dies™.
Forum Software: Burning Board®, developed by WoltLab® GmbH
© Design by Symthic.com