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

Posts: 1,109

Date of registration
: Jun 24th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Winner's podium

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 8:29pm

Any particular reason why the carbines got turned into assault rifles?
You have just read a Post by The World Champion and now feel smarter for doing so.
-------
Cham·pi·on
noun \ˈcham-pē-ən\

1 : Warrior, Fighter
2 : a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <The champion of the World>

  • "absol_89" started this thread

Posts: 66

Date of registration
: Sep 10th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 9:06pm

While I might be treading close to breaking rule nine now, I think that a different layout for the post above would allow for more clarity. It puts some serious strain on my eyes reading such a long post with lines being left out constantly. Jeez I thought I was bad when it came to that.

Weapon price and unlock time should not be a factor in balancing considerations if the unlock is permanent afterwards. This means no "upgrades", but "variety".

I am also unaware how the Saiga .308 has a 2HK up close that the PTR does not have. True, the Saiga has 45 instead of 43 damage but that's stil not a 2 hit kill.

You missed that I would _prefer_ if the saiga had some kind of edge, because it has the worst range. The range profile lends it to a risky but rewarding max damage change.

I just Re-formatted the explaining post, I am horrified that so few people can compute damage models when they see them. I also cannot change the forum pic size.
I put one line at a time because Legion seemed to have difficulty grasping concepts unless they were presented one by one. Did anyone even read the summary table?

@absol_89

You completely miss the point of Legions post. He was not discussing the validity of your topic, rather he was recommending that you read our forum rules. Especially rule 2 and 5. Your opening post is very hard to read, and your use of oversized visuals does not help get your point across. Many of your suggestions have no statistical backing and you have pulled numbers out of nowhere in your suggestions to change balance.

So please, reread Legions post again, and this time comprehend it, do not glaze over it and produce a reply that is completely unnecessary.

The opening post is now updated with motivations instead of calculations. As I said, the forum did not reduce the pic size, just use CTRL and - to unzoom them.

The numbers are not pulled out of my ass, they are similar to numbers used in previous games and anyone on Symthic should be familiar with earlier metas.
The statistical backing is inherent in the numbers used. Lower rates of fire are compensated with fewer bullets to kill at range etc. I should not have to
explain EXACTLY how a 600 rpm weapon would benefit from 20 min damage in order to compete with 800 rpm 18 min damage weapons. Really? Should I ?

I even copied the current range profiles and marked the graph where certain fraction numbers of 100 were (which change bullets to kill and effective range).
I am simply disappointed that many of you can read symthic stats right from the start and find the top guns and then ask me to crunch this system for you?

Any particular reason why the carbines got turned into assault rifles?

They have lower min damage at similar drop off range in my system. So in close range they can compete with ROF, mobility or reload speed. But not at range.

yugas42

Moderator

(1,387)

Posts: 1,494

Date of registration
: Sep 1st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 9:28pm



@absol_89

You completely miss the point of Legions post. He was not discussing the validity of your topic, rather he was recommending that you read our forum rules. Especially rule 2 and 5. Your opening post is very hard to read, and your use of oversized visuals does not help get your point across. Many of your suggestions have no statistical backing and you have pulled numbers out of nowhere in your suggestions to change balance.

So please, reread Legions post again, and this time comprehend it, do not glaze over it and produce a reply that is completely unnecessary.

The opening post is now updated with motivations instead of calculations. As I said, the forum did not reduce the pic size, just use CTRL and - to unzoom them.

The numbers are not pulled out of my ass, they are similar to numbers used in previous games and anyone on Symthic should be familiar with earlier metas.
The statistical backing is inherent in the numbers used. Lower rates of fire are compensated with fewer bullets to kill at range etc. I should not have to
explain EXACTLY how a 600 rpm weapon would benefit from 20 min damage in order to compete with 800 rpm 18 min damage weapons. Really? Should I ?


Thank you for rewording your post.

As for the second paragraph:

Yes, you should explain why a 600 RPM weapon would benefit from a damage change. You are, in fact, expected to do so. You are also encouraged to provide context for your posts if necessary. Simply saying "this is the same as the last game" is not acceptable for two reasons. 1) Not everyone who contributes to or reads these forums have played previous Battlefield titles, many of the people who read our forums do not even have accounts, and are not familiar with past topics of discussion here. 2) Some of the people who DO have accounts here and read and reply to this topic may not have read or contributed to any topics you refer to as justification for your suggestions and opinions.

It is very easy to link past discussions or even refer to damage graphs or stats from previous games, so to avoid confusion, and provide context to your argument, you are encouraged to do so. I am not going to ask you to go dig up threads to use as proof, since you just clarified it in the post i'm replying to, but in the future it will help prevent people from thinking your post is full of arbitrary numbers. So, again, thank you for clarifying.

Posts: 1,420

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany, Bavaria

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

24

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 9:33pm

Symthic is very aware of earlier metas, let's see how rate of fire was balanced in the other Frostbite 2 engine games:

Battlefield 3 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

Battlefield 3 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

BF4: M249 vs MG4 vs U-100 MK5 vs QBB-95-1 vs RPK-12 | BF4 Multi-Weapon Comparison | Symthic

BF4: FAMAS vs AEK-971 vs M416 vs QBZ-95-1 vs AK-12 | BF4 Multi-Weapon Comparison | Symthic

BF4: ACW-R vs SG553 vs ACE 21 CQB vs AKU-12 vs Type-95B-1 | BF4 Multi-Weapon Comparison | Symthic

Rate of fire has not been balanced against damage within the same caliber and weapon type since BFBC2. This is a rather consistent approach that also requires less lines of code and is quite simple to grasp and work with.
Spread, SIPS and recoil values have been the primary balancing factors and it worked *rather* well, albeit not nearly perfectly.

An approach with more diverse damage profiles (i.e. bullets) would be quite the undertaking. It even appears that Visceral tried and failed because they did not manage to juggle all the factors correctly. And by that I mean "they done goofed big time on spread, SIPS and h-recoil."
Zormau - Battlelog / Battlefield 4

Memorable quotes not taken yet:


Of course, this ignores the non-constant cross-sectional first moment of area across the chest as well as non-constant material properties of the boob; it would be difficult to perform a more detailed analysis (as in, I'd have to have a shape function AND I'd need to derive a function for elastic modulus as a function of lateral breast coordinate) but whatever. It's 2am and I'm lazy.


I always believed science should be very hands on experience.

You should also answer this question I had posed in that thread: Would you be willing to pay your surgeon more if he was going to use a chainsaw for the opening incision of surgery? Clearly using a chainsaw isn't truly suited for surgery but that doesn't really matter. If he's "skilled" enough to be able to use the wrong tools of the trade, he should be rewarded for that skill right?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Zormau" (Mar 25th 2015, 9:53pm)


  • "absol_89" started this thread

Posts: 66

Date of registration
: Sep 10th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

25

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 10:11pm

Thanks for your replies, I am updating the OP as we speak, with more indepth arguments. I won't post too many numbers though as they are easier to compare in multi-comparison graphs. At the moment I do not yet have time to create those graphs, since I don't have the same resources as you do with the "Highcharts" API. As you see with this graph, flat caliber balancing with varying reload times and spreads is not competitive and makes combat over range chance based (not competitive)



The graph of my damage models would instead cause weapons to crisscross across each others TTK lines and have unique range "territories" where they excel. This would prevent RPM from being the deciding factor when recoil and burst firing is accounted for, which is always the case when dealing with the competitive scene. This means you could outplay opponents with positioning

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,997)

Posts: 7,177

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

26

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 10:21pm

As you see with this graph, flat caliber balancing with varying reload times and spreads is not competitive and makes combat over range chance based (not competitive)

The graph of my damage models would instead cause weapons to crisscross across each others TTK lines and have unique range "territories" where they excel. This would prevent RPM from being the deciding factor when recoil and burst firing is accounted for, which is always the case when dealing with the competitive scene. This means you could outplay opponents with positioning


do you mind elaborating on this? and explain how the current situation does not promote "range territories?"
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: 1,420

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany, Bavaria

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

27

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 10:22pm

Horizontal recoil and spread cannot be accounted for. That is why the FAMAS was, at range, far inferior to the AK-12 or SAR-21.

Using hitrater for a target at 50m yields the following results for the FAMAS (no attachments) compared to the SAR-21 (no attachments), assuming perfect recoil control:

Both weapons have a 100% chance of hitting the first shot, but the second shot of the FAMAS goes down to a 59.08% chance, the third drops to 44.3%. The SAR-21, however, has a chance of 94.04% to hit the second and a 84.72% chance of hitting the third.

So while the SAR-21 fires bullets 40% slower and will thus be at a massive disadvantage up close, it's going to be able to land them far more reliably at range.
Zormau - Battlelog / Battlefield 4

Memorable quotes not taken yet:


Of course, this ignores the non-constant cross-sectional first moment of area across the chest as well as non-constant material properties of the boob; it would be difficult to perform a more detailed analysis (as in, I'd have to have a shape function AND I'd need to derive a function for elastic modulus as a function of lateral breast coordinate) but whatever. It's 2am and I'm lazy.


I always believed science should be very hands on experience.

You should also answer this question I had posed in that thread: Would you be willing to pay your surgeon more if he was going to use a chainsaw for the opening incision of surgery? Clearly using a chainsaw isn't truly suited for surgery but that doesn't really matter. If he's "skilled" enough to be able to use the wrong tools of the trade, he should be rewarded for that skill right?


Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,624)

Posts: 1,389

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

28

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 10:55pm

. As you see with this graph, flat caliber balancing with varying reload times and spreads is not competitive and makes combat over range chance based (not competitive)


How does this graph demonstrate this? Saying something is the case doesn't make it true, nor does it demonstrate said truth to others.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"

EMPOWER EMPOWER EMPOWER

  • "absol_89" started this thread

Posts: 66

Date of registration
: Sep 10th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

29

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 11:24pm


How does this graph demonstrate this? Saying something is the case doesn't make it true, nor does it demonstrate said truth to others.


As Zormau said, the _CHANCE_ to hit 6 shots with the famas, before hitting 6 shots with the SAR - depends on percentages, which can be reset by tap firing.
It also depends on if you've been hit and fliched by the enemy shots, who shot first, and if the randomly deviating shots hit the head or the target's limbs.

With the most competitive scenario in mind, players will counter most of the chance with their attachments and firing style, trying to mimic the TTK graph.
This always comes with some misses involved. But with misses, high RPM is also more forgiving and the next try will arrive faster with the higher cycle rate.

This is why I say what RPM will always be the deciding factor for reducing risk in an environment where you can control most of the recoil (i.e. competitive)

Also, I updated the OP with descriptions and have now lost a few hours of my evening explaining basic metagame number crunching and spacing images.


do you mind elaborating on this? and explain how the current situation does not promote "range territories?"

Sure. For example if you take the MPX vs the M16A3, the MPX will have a faster TTK at first due to the 3 BTK, vs the 4 BTK. Both kill in 2 headshots though. (both 800 rpm)

But when the damage drop off for the MPX starts, it has the same TTK as the M16A3 between 15-22 m (33-25 dmg), while the M16 stays at 4 BTK until 45m.
At 22m for the MPX, it crosses over the M16A3 TTK line and has worse TTK after that. This creates 2 "territories" or TTK intervals, 0 m > MPX > 22 m > M16A3.

When we expand this concept we see these "territories" or intervals 0 m > SPAS-12 > 870p > K10 > MPX > SA-58 > AKM > M416 > M16A3 > AKM again > Scout E.

I don't have time to fill in all the ranges, but basically what I am getting at is this. If a caliber model is used; The ranges will stay the same, making RPM deciding.
If the range or damage within each caliber class are tweaked; TTK with the same RPM may vary over range even within one weapon class. Criscrossing becomes
interesting because you can use your knowledge of weapons used to outposition your enemy, outside of their "effective territory". Backing up or closing in more.

This leads to better tactical map useage. For example you could find a good spot for the M16A3 where you have lines of sight that are more than 25 m in range.

This post has been edited 11 times, last edit by "absol_89" (Mar 25th 2015, 11:41pm)


Posts: 1,614

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Guilin Peaks, Finland

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

30

Wednesday, March 25th 2015, 11:49pm

With the most competitive scenario in mind, players will counter most of the chance with their attachments and firing style, trying to mimic the TTK graph.

No. Hear what Darktan and Zormau said.

By throwing words, you cannot get around the intricate effects of spread increase, H recoil, and even the theoretically counterable weapon stats like V recoil and FSM that in-game can be true handicaps. Guns can be balanced by understanding all the associated numbers and this often means simulations, at least for the regular mortals, because you cannot just 'see' the effective DPS of some gun at some range from the stats. Beyond the range where you hit automatically no matter what, _everything_ depends on chance, and that chance is controlled by the stats. Sure sometimes FAMAS beats SAR-21 at 80 m, but the chance for that is pretty damn low.

And no-one gets even close to TTK graphs beyond CQB - TTK/BTK are meaningless metrics in a game where the true in-game DPS or TTK is controlled by the statistics.

Attachments and firing styles are also always compromises. Need to lower FSM with angled? Too bad, someone else can use ergo. Need to use the compensator? Well another gun gets away with heavy barrel. Need to tap fire? Well, there goes the DPS advantage while the guy shooting longer bursts has easier time aiming.
"Less is more? How can that be? How could less be more, that's impossible. More is more." Yngwie Malmsten
"Many bullets help." WoopsyYaya
"most rhetorically legitimate ad hominem 2015" ToTheSun!