| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
PSU: PlanetSide cheats found in the Downloads section, go now.
| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
|
2013-03-06, 05:37 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #46 | ||||
|
Private
|
I posted some thoughts here about weapons "in vacuum" - i.e. weapons being used under perfect conditions with perfect aim. The fact of the matter is that the majority of vocal people are unable to view advantages and disadvantages in a detached, objective way - and those people will eternally cling to disadvantages of their own guns and advantages of other factions' guns. The specific example I jokingly used was the TRAC-5 vs. the Solstice (moving and ADS). I even made this very troll-bait graph which shows there is a tiny difference in their bullet damage, with the Solstice being ahead for the effective range of carbines. In terms of theoretically perfect TTK, the Solstice is very slightly ahead outside ~20m. This is almost entirely because of its initial COF advantage (remember, this is moving and ADS). So at this point, the unobjective amongst us would claim that TR weapons (all of them, every one, not just the TRAC-5) are bad/trash/etc. happily ignoring the substantial extra damage they have per magazine and their advantage at closer ranges due to their higher ROF. The reality is that the patterns used to offset the factions tend to make the guns pretty balanced overall, and the only progress being made torturing ourselves over which ones are better is primarily in satisfying our curiosity.
Assuming the numbers are correct (I only checked one set to get the general idea of how to do it), your analysis is a bit flawed. The magnitude of recoil is a fairly irrelevant thing when talking about unidirectional (i.e. not balanced) recoil since to counter it you just pull faster. In this game, there isn't a gun (except maybe the semi-auto scout rifles or battle rifles) that is notably physically more difficult to counter than any other gun. In addition, you draw an unnecessary distinction between exactly how biased the directionality of unidirectional recoil is. The only thing that matters here for balance purposes is the degree to which the directionality changes - that's why balanced recoil is the worst by far. The range over which both the TRAC-5 and Solstice can bump is the same size. You'll just pull slightly different directions for either of them in order to counter. Also, the Mercenary which you describe as having the least "jitter" and as having straight-up recoil actually has the worst of all possible recoils - it has balanced recoil, which means it will randomly bump left or right on each shot. --------------------- Also, in response to those who claim that flinch has no effect on weapon balance or "l2p" etc.: All the proposed "counters" to flinch like "take cover" "don't get shot first" "don't run into an open field" etc. apply equally to players who have (or at least, had before the change) flinch-dealing monster ROF weapons. There isn't a specific "counter" to flinch that you can do with a low ROF weapon. NC weapons are overwhelmingly balanced recoil with higher magnitude recoil and lower ROF/higher damage. If you need 7 shots to kill (common for TR and VS weapons), and flinch causes you to miss a shot, you've wasted 1/7th of a kill in terms of bullets and refire time. If you do the same with the average NC weapon (or weapons like the Flare, Pulsar C, TMG-50), you miss out on 1/6th of a kill and refire time - a higher price to pay. In addition, the way flinch works punishes balanced recoil because it basically takes whatever your recoil vector was and applies it harder - this means recentering a balanced recoil weapon is much harder after getting flinched. I'm not positive, but I had the strong impression that flinch also multiplied based on the magnitude of your recoil - so weapons like the Solstice were much less affected than weapons like the Gauss SAW or X11. Last edited by Innate; 2013-03-06 at 05:50 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 07:58 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #47 | |||
|
Major
|
"As of the time of this writing, the information regarding balanced horizontal recoil is not easily available. Without accurate numbers on a per-gun basis, I can't simulate the effect of balanced horizontal recoil on accuracy - so I've chosen to ignore it entirely. Just know that balanced horizontal recoil is ruinous to a gun's accuracy at longer ranges - the farther you go from 0m, the worse the accuracy penalty gets. In a worst-case scenario, even with perfect aim, balanced horizontal recoil is expected to cause an additional miss rate of 50%. That is drastic and something readers need to keep in mind." And "The "journey" up to this point is filled with sources of error - i.e. we expect differences between our calculations and what will actually happen in the game engine. I've artificially limited the range at which we will look at weapon stats to 80m. In my professional opinion, things inside this range should be fairly accurate with only minor differences between game engine and calculations. It's important to note that the sources of error we met with are not random. This means that the relative value of calculations is not going to be questionable - better stats will show better performance. This is just a warning not to treat everything as if it's one-to-one with the game engine. Additionally, the examples shown will all assume 100% perfect aim, something even aimbots aren't sophisticated enough to do without altering weapon stats." I'll give you props on knowing your math and being able to get data out of just the numbers, but you assume far to much. First is the vacuum conditions at 100% aim. Not even at 0m can a person get 100% aim in perfect conditions thanks to where bullets spawn. When not aiming down sights all weapon fire is coming out of the weapon and not center screen. Grab a MAX as an example and you will see that hugging a target at 0m will make shots miss thanks to how cross-eyed MAXes weapons are, it's the same past a certain range. Load a dual AV MAX and fire in the distance. You will watch the shells make a long X with the crossing point somewhere around 75m. Did you account for that at all? What I am planing on doing is planting my ass at set distances and fire on targets in as many ways as I can think of with every weapon that the game has. That is the ONLY way to see what really happens within the game. Your math may be right (I am not arguing that it isn't) but even yourself said that the data used in that math is either incomplete or could be flat out wrong. There's also the huge amount of people that can't relate the raw numbers to how they work in game. They (like me) need to take a hands on approach before understanding something. You can tell me all the stats in the world but until I hold the weapon and test it under the conditions we all face everyday then those numbers have little meaning. More so if each variable (range, stance, target movement, target size) needs it's own equation done in a split tick of the clock. In short- On paper things read as you want them to without EVERYTHING accounted for (choosing to ignore stats and assuming perfect conditions as small examples). The only way to tell for real what can and can't happen is to say "Fuck it" and jump off the cliff. Till then we can never know for certain about anything. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 08:49 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #48 | ||
|
Major
|
The fix to flinch locking is a great help to NC and bridged some gap, but,
The VS and TR still lead in sheer DPS. Sustained fire in high ROF and highly accurate weapons still have advantage in sheer dps since the longer they shoot, the more they hit. - High ROF, Highly accurate win in pure, sustained dps - High ROF, Highly accurate win with easier headshots - High ROF, Highly accurate win in shooting moving targets The problem is they didn't sufficiently mixed up the ups and downs. Vanu highly accurate, high rof, little recoil is just a dumb combination if terms of balance. Highly accurate weapons should be at least coupled with low rate of fire. High rate of fire should be coupled with large cone of fire at least. They should be more careful with stacking advantages/disadvantages. |
||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 08:51 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #49 | |||
|
Major
|
Short range (where 90% of my fights with a Carbine are), it does more DPS than other weapons. Explain to me how at short range when recoil plays a very minimal part in a fight, you need any other stats to determine one weapons power against another. Last edited by Xaine; 2013-03-06 at 10:29 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 09:12 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #50 | |||
|
Private
|
[1] Balanced horizontal recoil is a dice roll which makes you bump left or right depending on the roll you get. We have stats for horizontal recoil, and I could use those, but it'd be practically lying since every gun with balanced recoil has access to a Forward Grip (which 99% of them should use). Unfortunately, we do not know the exact effect of Forward Grips on horizontal recoil (i.e. I need the exact amount by which it changes). If I had that, I could figure it into the rest of the math quite easily. I simply have chosen not to do it since I would be doing it with significantly worse values than are actually going to be seen in gameplay. [2] There is always error associated with measurement, and all my data except COF values are taken strictly from measurement. This warning was mainly to mention that it's impossible for me to have a 100% reliable 100% accurate mathematical description of things unless I have access to numbers that only developers are privy to (i.e. numbers that the game engine logic uses, not something you could datamine). But they are really damned close. As far as perfect aim: imperfect aim (i.e. not having your gun pointed perfectly at the target) is a penalty which applies equally to every gun. Using perfect aim as a baseline is not a mistake or an oversight, it is a matter of choice. I could have arbitrarily chosen any level of aim and it would apply to all guns equally. [3] Two different responses to this. First, I know you're probably talking about "assumptions" as in I'm assuming perfect aim etc. In reality, I'm not assuming that some player is producing these results - I'm using my set of "assumptions" to create a sort of clean slate baseline in order to compare guns with each other. The baseline that I use would apply to every gun equally so it's somewhat arbitrary. The relative strengths and weaknesses of different guns are preserved no matter what baseline I choose. Rather than looking at the calculations for a gun and saying "this is what it does", it's better to say "this is how it behaves" and to modify its behavior in your mind in accordance with circumstances (if your target is moving, if it's dark, if the sun is in your eyes etc.). Secondly, in terms of "assumptions" as in I made up numbers etc. in order to get where I wanted to go - the only "assumption" I made was that characters are 2m tall - I was forced to make a guess at this, otherwise I couldn't proceed. It's a really good guess insofar as it produces results very consistent with in-game measurement. The length and format of the post is unfortunately not in the style of a guide, it's in the style of a "blog" about mathematical analysis. But this is the TLDR version. All I'm really doing is taking the gun's COF (per bullet) and comparing it to the size of a (standing) target on the screen. There's fundamentally nothing complex or incorrect about this procedure - the only variance from being 100% truth is going to be because of (small) errors associated with measuring sizes. Results in the field are going to be different due to circumstances (humans are worse or better at aiming depending on distance, it's harder to aim at night or when the sun is in your eyes or when your target has a certain camo etc.), but the utility of these calculations is not in trying to simulate exactly what the gun will be like when you leave the warpgate - it's about giving you an idea or an expectation of what the gun will be like in comparison to other guns. [4] I'm aware of all the behaviors you mentioned and they have no bearing on what I've done. I could very easily chop out everything closer than ~1m to simulate the distance the bullet spawns from the player etc. but what's the practical point of doing that? You know about this effect so you can safely ignore things closer than 1m. Just like you know that it's harder to aim when target are farther away or when they're moving and can adjust for that as well. Trying to "account" for all these factors removes the baseline nature of the calculations and makes their comparative value very low. As far as MAX weapons, I'm aware of their cross-eyed fixture and my math does not apply to them at all (though I could easily change it to do so). [5] I would never discourage anyone from doing science. Particularly not you in this case, since it seems we have the same aim - to build a framework of understanding in order to be able to rationally compare guns. Although in your case, and from some of the points you've brought up, it sounds to me like you're also very interested in mechanics-based "inconsistencies" like bullet spawn and interactions with latency (which my "perfect world" baseline calculations do not take into account). [6] Gun stats and equations etc. are only useful insofar as they describe the reality of the situation. Rather than thinking of it as a dichotomy, I prefer to think of our two methods as two sides of the same coin. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 10:11 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #51 | |||
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 10:32 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #52 | |||
|
Major
|
It seems like you're right about us being two sides of a coin (I even had that same thought long before getting to point 6). One side would rather be in the field letting ones subconscious do the work, and the other who seems to prefer knowing why in detail. Then again in that link you said that you did the same things with EVE. That can explain a lot about a person and maybe how they are also fucked in the head 
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 11:53 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #53 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
All guns have 2 types of recoils. 1 Directional recoil - the giun moves along a vector it can be vertical or slanted. 2 Balanced recoil - the gun bounces slightly back and forth side by side - the magnitude of the bounce may vary by gun - but I havent seen any one test it. But its worth noting that slanted directional recoil does not inherently negate back and forth recoil - they are separate functions.
__________________
Wherever you went - Here you are. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-06, 11:59 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #54 | |||
|
Contributor Major General
|
 (Okay, maybe you have to be a little screwed up. I've played it nearly since launch, almost 10 years, so I must be bat-shit insane...) Anyhoo, I haven't had a chance to play PS2 yet with the updated flinch mechanics, though I look forward to it. I've always liked the slow-firing, heavy-hitting style of the NC, but it in PS2 it's been more of a hindrance than anything else. The irony I've seen in reading through this thread has been the argument from some TR and VS players saying that NC players just don't know how to burst-fire their weapons properly. The funny thing about that is that all the weapons have pretty close to the same TTK when fired full auto, so when you burst-fire a weapon, you raise TTK (and if you're burst-firing enough rounds to kill someone, you've defeated the point of burst-firing to manage recoil). So combine needing to burst-fire weapons with a flinch mechanic that put higher-RoF weapons at an advantage, and the result was NC performing poorly in scenarios where 2 opponents begin firing simultaneously. And this is really where it gets to the irony; in order to counteract this problem, the NC have been buying and certing into weapons as similar to the TR and VS weapons as possible in terms of RoF and accuracy. This is the main reason why the NC haven't been completely steamrolled. If all of the GD-7F and EM6s and GD-22S were removed from the game all of a sudden, the NC would flounder. So again, I look forward to playing soon with the revised flinch mechanic. Maybe I'll be able to dust off my AC-X11 and Reaper DMR! Last edited by Electrofreak; 2013-03-07 at 12:01 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 12:03 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #55 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
The whole 'burst fire" argument is kind of silly. With a few exceptions any time you would need to burst fire a slow firing rifle you would also need to burst fire high RoF rifle.
__________________
Wherever you went - Here you are. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 12:08 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #56 | |||
|
Contributor Major General
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 12:16 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #57 | |||
|
Private
|
(I even explained this concept in depth using a similar format and terminology) Last edited by Innate; 2013-03-07 at 12:17 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 12:16 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #58 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Whether I use an AC-X11 or a Lynx - I seem to need to burst pretty much the same based on range. There is more shots in a Lynx burst but not much if any more damage.
__________________
Wherever you went - Here you are. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 12:17 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #59 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
__________________
Wherever you went - Here you are. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-03-07, 01:34 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #60 | ||||
|
Private
|
[2] I haven't seen any gun in the game that can have straight vertical recoil though it was mentioned to me that one of the new SMGs can. Every gun I've seen bumps along a vector whose angle wrt monitor "up" can change over some range (I think there are some guns where the range is 0, though). For example, the Solstice can bump anywhere between 10 degrees and 17 degrees off 90 (so between 80 and 73 degrees in normal coordinates). This range is fairly small, as are most unidirectional ranges. In this way, they are less subject to missing shots due to randomness than a balanced recoil weapon - this is the point I was making about "jitter", which is a word that semantically denotes random shaking, being more in line with a balanced recoil weapon (whose behavior is significantly less predictable than a unidirectional recoil weapon). Both recoil types are technically "random" but one is highly counterable whereas the other is not. [3] On each shot, the game engine determines whether you bump left or right. All the tests I've done come out so close to 50/50 that I'm forced to conclude there is no bias. There are, in fact, different horizontal recoils per gun. The basis of the CARV nerf was in increasing the horizontal recoil which reduced its performance at range. [4] I left this out of my quote earlier. At best, it's confusing. At worst, it betrays an... odd understanding of how recoil works. The idea that unidirectional recoil somehow interacts with balanced recoil is weird since no gun has both anyway. Last edited by Innate; 2013-03-07 at 01:42 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
imp: (failed emote)
Linear Mode
