But then you could change the formula somehow to time to shoot again or something. Barrett is around 145rpm, not sure. If the M21 can recenter in 250 (don't know, only an example) it is much better.
Just change it so the barrett isn't in the thousands
Well, you're asking for something completely different now (not that I don't like the idea) but this isn't something this code is designed for.
Maybe I'll do something like that while trying to get the GunKick numbers.
What rate of fire did you use for the manual action weapons (CoD4 and Black Ops)?
For the bolt action rifles I used the rechamberTimes. For the shotguns I used the lesser of either their fireTimes or 0.096 (625 RPM). I used the numbers I found in Den's charts.
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #183 on Aug 6, 2012, 12:40am »
Ok, that's wrong. Rate of fire for manual action weapons is fireTime (time until rechambering starts) + rechamberTime (time until you can shoot again).
Ok, that's wrong. Rate of fire for manual action weapons is fireTime (time until rechambering starts) + rechamberTime (time until you can shoot again).
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #187 on Aug 6, 2012, 5:40pm »
I think you made a small mistake with Double Tap: 923 / 1226 = 0.75285 It should be exactly 0.75.
Also, do you think they only changed the minimum and maximum gunkick in MW3? Maybe we can get some results with the values from XboxAhoy's recoil video.
I think you made a small mistake with Double Tap: 923 / 1226 = 0.75285 It should be exactly 0.75.
Also, do you think they only changed the minimum and maximum gunkick in MW3? Maybe we can get some results with the values from XboxAhoy's recoil video.
You're right, but I ended up rounding the rate of fire numbers in my spreadsheet to the nearest whole number, hence the discrepancy. We can live with that, right?
As for the GunKick numbers: I did run a test on my own with the Pecheneg using the numbers XboxAhoy featured in his Recoil video. I assumed an accel value of 800 and decay values of 32 and 40, respectively, similar to those seen in the AR and LMG class in CoD4. The GunKick-less Pecheneg measures in at 54.81 RU and the Pecheneg with the GUnKick numbers I mentioned earlier scores at 63.00 RU (recoil units, unbiased).
My gut feeling is that that is not accurate. I think IW fiddled around with the other GunKick numbers as well.
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #189 on Aug 6, 2012, 7:02pm »
I also ran a test with the L86. Without GunKick, the L86 measures in at 10.51, and with XboxAhoy's GunKick numbers (assuming the same decay and accel numbers as before) the L86 still scores a measly 18.24, putting it on par with a stock ACR. I find that hard to believe myself.
Edit: Actually, it's not THAT farfetched. I started firing 5-6 round bursts into walls with the L86 and ACR and, quite honestly, I started to forget which groupings came from which gun. It might have been the fact that you can fire 100 consecutive rounds form an L86 that convinced me its score should be much higher. A score of 18.24 w/ GunKick also puts it as the best stock LMG, which, again, is reasonable.
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #190 on Aug 7, 2012, 11:53pm »
I'm about to update the MW3 results in the latest draft to account for the changes implemented in the weapon balance pass. Is there a single place where I can go to find all the relevant changes?
Also, I'm still wondering how we can get those GunKick numbers. I just never seem to catch the right people on Twitter at the right time. I know Brick2urface has the ear of a couple of developers, but I've never seen him post in this thread. Do you think he might help?
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #191 on Aug 7, 2012, 11:55pm »
Yes, just PM or post it into his thread. And for the changes, M16 and MP5 shoots at 895rpm, PM9 had 22% reduction in both viewkick and gunkick. AK-47 got a 50% gunkick reduction.
Yes, just PM or post it into his thread. And for the changes, M16 and MP5 shoots at 895rpm, PM9 had 22% reduction in both viewkick and gunkick. AK-47 got a 50% gunkick reduction.
Is that all? I thought something happened to the FAD and a few others, too.
The only issue there is that its hard as hell to reach specialist with a PM9 kick+rapid
Not that hard. I've done it countless times already with PM-9 w/ RF + EM. This setup has replaced my PP90M1 w/ RF + EM and its a blast to use even if the muzzle flash seems to make it a little harder to track enemies while ADS then the PP90M1... or at least in my opinion it does.
Did you make a mistake with the CoD4 shotguns? Shouldn't the W1200 get a better result than the M1014 because of its much lower rate of fire?
Not necessarily. It might be a case of the W1200 kicking out so far that it can't recover enough distance to bring it closer to center than however far the M1014 kicks out on a single shot, even as the W1200 has that much more time to recover. I checked the numbers in my weapon list and they seem to be right (300 RPM for the M1014, 80 RPM for the W1200). The W1200 also has half the CenterSpeed of the M1014 and considerably larger Yaw kick values, so it doesn't seem impossible that it would fare worse.
Did you make a mistake with the CoD4 shotguns? Shouldn't the W1200 get a better result than the M1014 because of its much lower rate of fire?
Not necessarily. It might be a case of the W1200 kicking out so far that it can't recover enough distance to bring it closer to center than however far the M1014 kicks out on a single shot, even as the W1200 has that much more time to recover. I checked the numbers in my weapon list and they seem to be right (300 RPM for the M1014, 80 RPM for the W1200). The W1200 also has half the CenterSpeed of the M1014 and considerably larger Yaw kick values, so it doesn't seem impossible that it would fare worse.
[Opens up CoD4...]
I think that's what it is. I fired them both at a wall extensively and I'd swear the W1200's second shot was consistently further out than the M1014's, but you're welcome to disagree .
Also, I updated the link to the code in the OP, just in case anyone is bored enough to stare the wall of text/code I wrote.
(Also, after opening up the game to test the shotguns, I find myself playing CoD4 like my life depended on it. I'm hooked!)
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #204 on Aug 25, 2012, 10:28am »
Welp, I've got bad news.
Thanks to Marvel's inquisitiveness, he's discovered a rather significant error in our assumptions about Kick -- not to mention a bug regarding stance bonuses for recoil.
It turns out that Kick only reduces ViewKick and GunKick each by 10%, not 20%. He speculates that the makers of the guide added 10 and 10 together to get a "20%" reduction in recoil. Derp.
Thus, my recoil charts for MW3 need yet another revision, which will come sometime within the next week. The unfortunate thing is, Kick's efficacy in reducing recoil on guns with high amounts of GunKick will be disguised by my results, as I cannot account for GunKick yet. It will appear that Grip is superior in every case (-10% ViewKick and +25% CenterSpeed > -10% ViewKick all day) but this is clearly not true. A note will be added to this effect in the revision.
Re: A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats « Reply #207 on Aug 29, 2012, 9:50pm »
So, the MW3 updates are done. I've just patched up the current MW3 spreadsheets this time around, so the links in the OP should still work.
Two major changes:
1. The LMGs and sniper rifles now have three measurements for each gun, one for each stance. Marvel managed to find the stance multipliers to recoil and they are now accounted for in the charts.
2. Marvel also discovered that Kick only reduces ViewKick values by 10%, not 20%. This, too, is now accounted for in the charts.
Again, GunKick is not accounted for in any of the charts. This will mean that the 10% reduction in GunKick granted by Kick is not accounted for either in the results. Thus, it will appear that the Grip is superior to Kick in all cases, when we know it is not for certain weapons. Keep that in mind.
Whelp, there's a huge bug in the code. Apparently, the ACR get's better when you use only %10 ViewKick reduction, not worse. Ignore everything I just said.
Seeing as we probably will never get those GunKick numbers for MW3 -- not to mention interest in the game appears to be waning rapidly on these fora -- the only thing I think makes sense now is to refine the method and get it ready for Black Ops 2. To that, end, I will be trying to improve the way semi-automatics are graded.
As it is, for the purposes of this method all semi-automatics are assumed to fire at 625 RPM or their actual firecap, whichever is lower. What I would like to do as have three separate measurements included for each semi-automatic weapon, all at different fire rates. For example, if a gun has a ridiculous firecap of 1200 RPM, the method will simply try to grade it at three realistic rates. One will represent firing the gun "slowly" (200 RPM), the next at a "moderate" rate (400 RPM), and at a "fast" rate (600 RPM). If the real firerate than any of these benchmarks, then only those which are less than the actual firerate would be included, and the largest firerate to be included will be the firecap itself. So, for example ,if a gun has a firerate of 450 RPM, then the gun will be rated at 225 RPM and 450 RPM. Something like that.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/8AqLDdF.png "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7360/90615208.png "[avatar]")
It's only the semi-autos that need it anyway.
![[avatar]](http://www.abload.de/img/hitgirl200p4dznx.jpg "[avatar]")
. I think a mistake that big will have to be corrected tomorrow.
![[avatar]](http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/625.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/yF3AUEB.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8229/lanternaverdecopygrey.png "[avatar]")
.![[avatar]](http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/b/be/ArmyPro.png "[avatar]")