Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

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

  • "Talent" started this thread

Posts: 391

Date of registration
: Feb 4th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, September 6th 2016, 10:52pm

Theory: Finding the Best Guns, Relative DPS (I need help)

Hello All,

Most of us want to know which gun is "best" so we come to sites like this to see that technical stats of each gun. I think most people stop at Damage Per Second, and choose that gun as best. I, however, disagree with using DPS as the only factor for choosing the "best" gun. There are many factors, such as reload time, mag size, spread, moving spread, etc etc. Since Battlefield is heavily based on spread, I usually prioritize spread over dps while looking at reload times and mag size as minor factors. This being said, I've found the most accurate guns and highest DPS guns for each class:

(Class: SpreadGun/DPSGun)

Assault: AN94/Famas

Engineer: UMP 9/CZ-3A1

Support: RPK-12/M240B

DMR: Svd 12/SKS

Carbines: G36C/MTAR

Pistol: M1911/93r

(notice I've left out Recon/Sniper Rifles since they fight using a separate system)

Finding DPS was simple, just look at the DPS charts and find the biggest number. Accuracy was a little rough since I had to take into account Base spread, spread increase per shot, spread decrease, bullpup etc etc. But I did it nonetheless. Now that I've found the most accurate guns and highest dps guns of each class, I'm still not content with the amount of information I have to come to a conclusion of "best gun". Currently, my mode of thinking is the DPS gun means nothing if it can't even hit your target, while accuracy (though probably more effective than dps) also means little if you're shooting peas at your enemy. So now I've come to the idea of "Relative DPS" which combines both accuracy and DPS. However, this is where I'm stuck with the stats. I consider myself a layman that values science; I use science even though my overall understanding of it may not be as high. Usually, I ask questions, a lot of them to figure it out.

Right now my problem is understanding how spread works completely and turning that into a Accuracy % where I can make supported theoretical statements that x number of bullets will hit the enemy target at y meters. With this information we can calculate "Relative DPS" by multiplying DPS by the accuracy % and thus finding the true "best gun" at y meters.


From my research "Spread = radius of circle used for random selection", which leads me to ask at what radius is enemy torso at y meters? Figuring this out should give us knowledge that way any spread out side of torso radius has a chance to miss? So dividing the spread radius over the enemy hitbox radius should give us the percentage chance to for a bullet to land outside of the hitbox? Then we can multiply that by DPS to find relative DPS?

Please help!

Thanks!

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 1:53am

The "best gun" at y metres will be the gun with the lowest TTK at y metres. Sounds obvious, but it's always good to establish what you're trying to find.

As you've said, the factors that go into this are both the DPS of the weapon, made up of damage and RoF, and the accuracy of the weapon, made up of spread and horizontal recoil. So in essence, you want to find the best tradeoff between the two at y metres.

From my research "Spread = radius of circle used for random selection", which leads me to ask at what radius is enemy torso at y meters? Figuring this out should give us knowledge that way any spread out side of torso radius has a chance to miss? So dividing the spread radius over the enemy hitbox radius should give us the percentage chance to for a bullet to land outside of the hitbox? Then we can multiply that by DPS to find relative DPS?

Not quite.

The radius of the target will remain consistent no matter what range you're firing at it from. The size of the hitboxes can be found here. However, since I don't really want to factor complicated shapes into my calculations, I generally just use a simplified hitbox consisting of just the upper chest.

What will change, however, is the radius of your own spread. This is due to the parameters of your spread being a cone; the further out you are from the target, the larger the base of the spread cone, and thus the larger the radius of your own spread. The radius can be found using simple trigonometry:

RadiusOfSpread = Distance * TAN(SpreadValue)

To find the percentage chance of a certain bullet hitting the target (assuming equal distribution of shots within the cone of fire), you divide the area of the target by the area of your spread at y metres. This is also fairly easy to find:

ChanceToHit = (AreaOfTarget / (pi * RadiusOfSpread^2))* 100

Now, your ChanceToHit will change every shot, due to SIPS. This means that you have to calculate it every shot. Because of this, I find that calculating the TTK is much easier than calculating "relative DPS" (and it's a lot more useful as well).


As nice as this is, it doesn't give you the full picture of accuracy, as we haven't factored in horizontal recoil yet. However, after extensive thinking, since horizontal recoil is randomised in both direction and magnitude, I've come to the conclusion that factoring horizontal recoil into accuracy is only really feasible by a computer, or by doing hundreds of manual calculations (which I'm not bothered to do). If you want to find a faster way, be my guest, but AFAIK, there is no faster way other than manual, iterative calculations.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

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.


  • "Talent" started this thread

Posts: 391

Date of registration
: Feb 4th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 4:49am

What will change, however, is the radius of your own spread. This is due to the parameters of your spread being a cone; the further out you are from the target, the larger the base of the spread cone, and thus the larger the radius of your own spread.


The imagery I got from this was very exciting, Iove learning new things!

RadiusOfSpread = Distance * TAN(SpreadValue)


Math is so amazing.


ChanceToHit = (AreaOfTarget / (pi * RadiusOfSpread^2))* 100


Getting excited.

Now, your ChanceToHit will change every shot, due to SIPS. This means that you have to calculate it every shot. Because of this, I find that calculating the TTK is much easier than calculating "relative DPS" (and it's a lot more useful as well).


aaaannnd heartbroken. Though content there is a way. I wonder if plotic could be a tool to help find chance to hit? It already accounts for SIPS, just not under area of target. Would that make sense?

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,859)

Posts: 7,105

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 5:23am

Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 282

Date of registration
: Mar 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 12:03pm

@Talent

I think the purpose of finding the BEST weapon, so in general, is not a correct approach .... because that task is impossible.

There are too many factors influencing the results.

Are you going to shoot with continuous burst or repeated micro bursts?.

If you repeat micro bursts... Faster you can ?. With the optimal delay to reduce the spread ?.

Are you going to correct the recoil ?. Completely? 50%?.

Perfect or random aiming? to head? to chest? to an optimal and indeterminate point?

Are you going to consider usability factors: magazine size, time of reload...?

etc, etc, etc....

It is more correct to set a baseline scenario (initial hypothesis) knowing that the results will refer exclusively to these hypotheses.

In my case I have done enough analysis without recoil correction, continous burst, against a static and synthetic target.. That is...a test bench analysis. The results refer exclusively to those initial hypothesis.

Even in this case there are problems for analysis. Look at this graph and takes the values as an index of efficiency vs distance (no matter here the methodology and initial hypothesis):



Which is best LMG? ... Hard to say, if you don`t add more hypothesis (map, more frequent distance of engagement, style of play ...).

The only way I can think to assess the best weapon is a statistical analysis of the results of thousands (better tens of thousands) of players using different weapons (all maps, all skills, all styles of game...)- The weapon that get the best average ratio of deaths per minute should be the best.

But I suspect that if the balance of weapons is correct ... that ratio should be very similar for all weapons.

So... set your initial hypothesis and welcome to the world of weapons analysis :)

  • "Talent" started this thread

Posts: 391

Date of registration
: Feb 4th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 2:11pm

@Talent

I think the purpose of finding the BEST weapon, so in general, is not a correct approach .... because that task is impossible.

There are too many factors influencing the results.

Are you going to shoot with continuous burst or repeated micro bursts?.

If you repeat micro bursts... Faster you can ?. With the optimal delay to reduce the spread ?.

Are you going to correct the recoil ?. Completely? 50%?.

Perfect or random aiming? to head? to chest? to an optimal and indeterminate point?

Are you going to consider usability factors: magazine size, time of reload...?

etc, etc, etc....

It is more correct to set a baseline scenario (initial hypothesis) knowing that the results will refer exclusively to these hypotheses.

In my case I have done enough analysis without recoil correction, continous burst, against a static and synthetic target.. That is...a test bench analysis. The results refer exclusively to those initial hypothesis.

Even in this case there are problems for analysis. Look at this graph and takes the values as an index of efficiency vs distance (no matter here the methodology and initial hypothesis):



Which is best LMG? ... Hard to say, if you don`t add more hypothesis (map, more frequent distance of engagement, style of play ...).

The only way I can think to assess the best weapon is a statistical analysis of the results of thousands (better tens of thousands) of players using different weapons (all maps, all skills, all styles of game...)- The weapon that get the best average ratio of deaths per minute should be the best.

But I suspect that if the balance of weapons is correct ... that ratio should be very similar for all weapons.

So... set your initial hypothesis and welcome to the world of weapons analysis :)


First of all, beautiful work. I very much admire your statistical prowess, as a psychologist I am very found of statistical analysis. No doubt, I've realized there are many factors to take account of and you've delineated that well. The beauty of science is its capability to bring us closer to truth, though it may not get us there, a baby step is definitely closer than no steps at all! Truly, finding the "best" weapon is an arduous task. Hence, I've always placed "best" in quotes, and acknowledgement of the plethora of factors that describe what best is. As you've stated "best" certainly depends on personal hypothesis! To which I enjoy finding, for some reason...I guess closeness to truth is valuable to me, and science is just wonderful! I probably will have many questions for you in the future :D

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 2:31pm

Truly, finding the "best" weapon is an arduous task. Hence, I've always placed "best" in quotes, and acknowledgement of the plethora of factors that describe what best is. As you've stated "best" certainly depends on personal hypothesis!

IMO, the best gun at a certain range is the one which has the lowest TTK.

The best way to find this is to figure out the optimal burst length for every weapon in the game (the burst length that gives you the best tradeoffs between damage output and accuracy), then compare the TTKs between them and find which is the lowest.

However, what leptis said was right: you'll have to decide whether you want to take non-mathematical factors into account - reload speed, magazine size, FSM and vertical recoil, bullet velocity, strafing speed, hipfire, etc. These are all factors that do affect what are the "best" weapons, despite not being purely mathematical. I guess if you were really into it, you could do two analyses - one not taking into account non-mathematical factors, and one that does take into account non-mathematical factors.


I've considered doing my own analysis and posting it, but as you've probably guessed, I'm way too lazy to do that :D (among other IRL time constraints).
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

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.


Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,391)

Posts: 1,360

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 3:51pm

There is another method for tackling this question, an approach extremely popular in player vs player games of all genres.
Below are recent FPS examples of this other approach.

Overwatch Hero Tier List and Meta Report: Season 2, Meta Boogaloo - Overbuff - Overwatch Statistics
https://public.tableau.com/profile/benja…toricalTracking

However, whilst this approach has useful predictive power and has a proven track record (in Esports and traditional sports) of helping players and teams optimise their use of tools and plays, you won't find much approval of such a method among the more common members of this forum, out of a rabid hate of anything with the word competition or tournament associated with it.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"

EMPOWER EMPOWER EMPOWER

Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 11:10pm

I enjoyed using the AN-94 in "Battlefield 3" a lot, and since I got into "Battlefield 4" quite late and after the patch that made assault rifles 5HK for body shots in close quarters, I simply didn't like it as much.

In any case, due to the current damage model, you would need 3 bursts from the AN-94 to kill an opponent right in front of you unless you are getting headshots. In my opinion, it just makes it far less viable than its iteration in the previous game. Nowadays, it's only brilliant in medium range and quite mediocre in close range for a player like me who has somewhat subpar aim. Since you are looking for damage per second, there are much better alternatives for close engagements (such as the AEK-971) or ones that perform great at medium range but remain viable in close range (such as the ACE 23).

Regarding the FAMAS, don't you think its capabilities are too restricted by its smaller magazine in spite of having a high rate of fire?

  • "Talent" started this thread

Posts: 391

Date of registration
: Feb 4th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, September 7th 2016, 11:28pm

There is another method for tackling this question, an approach extremely popular in player vs player games of all genres.
Below are recent FPS examples of this other approach.

Overwatch Hero Tier List and Meta Report: Season 2, Meta Boogaloo - Overbuff - Overwatch Statistics
https://public.tableau.com/profile/benja…toricalTracking

However, whilst this approach has useful predictive power and has a proven track record (in Esports and traditional sports) of helping players and teams optimise their use of tools and plays, you won't find much approval of such a method among the more common members of this forum, out of a rabid hate of anything with the word competition or tournament associated with it.


Ah yes, this is very similar to what they do with League of Legends. Though "Theorycrafting" is much easier to do with League than with FPS games.






Quoted from "Talent"



Truly, finding the "best" weapon is an arduous task. Hence, I've always placed "best" in quotes, and acknowledgement of the plethora of factors that describe what best is. As you've stated "best" certainly depends on personal hypothesis!

IMO, the best gun at a certain range is the one which has the lowest TTK.

The best way to find this is to figure out the optimal burst length for every weapon in the game (the burst length that gives you the best tradeoffs between damage output and accuracy), then compare the TTKs between them and find which is the lowest.

However, what leptis said was right: you'll have to decide whether you want to take non-mathematical factors into account - reload speed, magazine size, FSM and vertical recoil, bullet velocity, strafing speed, hipfire, etc. These are all factors that do affect what are the "best" weapons, despite not being purely mathematical. I guess if you were really into it, you could do two analyses - one not taking into account non-mathematical factors, and one that does take into account non-mathematical factors.


I've considered doing my own analysis and posting it, but as you've probably guessed, I'm way too lazy to do that :D (among other IRL time constraints).


I sort of agree, thought I would probably be much more meticulous about it. The Famas has a 383 dps @ 20m the AN94 a 230 @ 20m. Hypothetical: If the AN 94 is 95% accurate at this range and the Famas 40% then the famas would have a 153 dps versus the AN94's 218 dps (ofc this has a lot of assumptions: no recoil, muzzle velocity etc etc) but this is basically the point that I'm getting at. That simple DPS isn't good enough for me personally :thumbsup: