|
Post by ghostfacekilla on Apr 30, 2011 14:56:26 GMT -5
The stats they have for the guns when your creating a class is obviously not very detailed. But it clearly says that the AK47 is stronger than the Commando. How am i suppose to believe that your numbers are correct and the guns are completely identical?
|
|
|
Post by Contrary on Apr 30, 2011 15:00:20 GMT -5
Test it yourself. How many bullets does it take to kill with Ak47 in this situation then test it with Commando. Compare firerates by seeing how long it takes to empty a clip, etc.
The CoD games have a long history of nonsensical stat bars.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Apr 30, 2011 15:11:05 GMT -5
The stat bars just cover up the actual weapon stats to make each weapon look unique. I can see them fudging some of the numbers for variety's sake, but in Black Ops they're just outright lies used to cover up lazy gun balancing. It makes me wonder how the average CoD player would react if the bars represented the actual stats: "all the guns are the SAAAAAAAMMMME "
|
|
|
Post by H8ters2 on Apr 30, 2011 16:02:41 GMT -5
All i have to say is, believe what you want to believe. If you think the stat bars are correct, fine. if you think our stats are correct, thats fine too. I have had many friends who i have heard using in-game stat bars for referinces and have tried to tell them about the "bro" community and some will ignore me, but then some will listen and come back to me and ask about which guns are strongest, etc. Some would also tease me for memorizing basically every primary weapon stat in the game. (lol?) I have found out the hard way about if someone has an open mind versus someone who will stick with what they think TO THE DEATH. (lol)
So i have 2 questions for the OP.
1. Are you someone who would like to get interested in the technical side of things? 2. Do you have an open mind?
|
|
|
Post by ArrrhImAPirate on Apr 30, 2011 16:47:26 GMT -5
All i have to say is, believe what you want to believe. If you think the stat bars are correct, fine. if you think our stats are correct, thats fine too. I think you're being too lenient with this. Don't believe the in-game gun stats. Those are just fluff. Use the charts on this site. They're based off code and actual digital numbers than tiny squares on your screen.
|
|
|
Post by vicariousgreg on Apr 30, 2011 22:22:54 GMT -5
I've heard people spew bullshit about the FAMAS taking 7 shots to kill, the AK47 being more powerful than the commando, and all sorts of stuff that's just flat out wrong. I don't think it's silly to get informed about this sort of thing to improve your game. It's a valuable thing to know how many rounds each weapon will take to kill from close and long ranges when you're making classes and choosing which weapons and attachments you use.
For example, it would be valuable to know that the CoD4 Dragunov and MW2 WA2000 don't benefit from stopping power, save for the very rare instance in which your target has sustained less than 30 damage and you're using stopping power and you hit them in one of the 1.0 multiplier spots. It's also helpful to know that using stopping power on the MW2 FAL doesn't do much unless you are also using the holographic sight.
|
|
IL TJ
True Bro
Posts: 103
|
Post by IL TJ on Apr 30, 2011 22:39:09 GMT -5
If cod4's stat bars were correct, then I am not sure if this place would even exist.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on May 1, 2011 1:43:44 GMT -5
I've had a very similar response to other Bro's when pointing out the actual stats from here e.g.
"How do you know this is right" and "If treyarch haven't confirmed this, then I won't just believe some kid off the internet..."
The fact is that you just make your choice either way, I've not once found a reason to doubt the stats here, or the work that Den or other Bro's do as part of testing this info, and until I do, then I'd rather go with that than some lame bars in-game that clearly aren't representative when you actually try the weapons.
Indy.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 1, 2011 2:38:04 GMT -5
Well, to be completely fair SP can give the WA2000 more penetration damage, but generally I only use SP on it when I use a silencer, in which case it shines and is basically the best silenced sniper rifle that can 1HK. But yeah, SP doesn't give you a larger 1HK area like it does the Barret and Intervention.
If people want to know how we know our stats are right and the in game stats are wrong the answer to that is simple... It's science! ;p We pick apart the files, do tons of research, and independently verify each others findings. This doo-doo is the real doo-doo and the in game doo-doo is just doo-doo doo-doo. ;p (hehee lurv the filters, caint wait to read that... >,> )
After all, where else can you find a community where the players are painstakingly measuring hits to kill in multiple health modes at 1 meter intervals to nail down the damage ranges, or conducting in depth discussions, experiments, and simulations regarding the exact workings of viewkick and centerspeed? I love this community. We're the Mythbusters of CoD, even more so than the guys that put up those Mythbusters vids on youtube. (Though they do bust and confirm some cool quirks. I'm not hatin on them. heh)
That Woody'sgamertag guy, though... He bothers me. He gets things wrong and gives it out as fact... and his testing methods are sloppy, leading to his faulty conclusions... Like saying the reflex and RDS in BO have a different level of zoom when it's actually exactly the same, and provable from his own video. *shrug*
|
|
tacit
True Bro
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by tacit on May 1, 2011 2:53:24 GMT -5
We all know that the CoD4 M4A1's bar graph stats are waaay out of proportion to its actual stats, and in MW2 there really isn't any difference [except in rate of fire] of the Intervention and the Barrett.
And the mere fact that almost every weapon has a damage shelf, and each weapon has some sort of modifier for particular body parts, is testament to the idea that a single bar graph value isn't representative of the damage each weapon can do.
LSS, believe whatever you like - it isn't going to change the way the weapon behaves in-game.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 1, 2011 3:47:54 GMT -5
The recoil is a bit different between the Intervention and Barrett, and some of the other stats are different such as the reload time, ect, but the damage stats are certainly identical. Still, they feel like they are varied in their own subtle ways despite this. The FAMAS and M16 have a similar situation as well. At first they just seem like identical weapons, but there are actually subtle differences. The USP and M9 as well as the Magnum and Deagle have similar situations as well.
I can't speak to BO guns, though. The MW2 ones have some similar weapons, but I feel that even those are varied enough to give you different flavors.
|
|
tacit
True Bro
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by tacit on May 1, 2011 4:07:11 GMT -5
The point I'm trying to make is that the bar graphs are largely arbitrary - believing one weapon does more damage than another won't change a thing, so he can test it for himself, or he can carry on thinking the way he does about the weapons.
You can test it a thousand times over, but at a particular range, with a particular weapon, it will take [excluding headshots] exactly the same amount of bullets to kill every time.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 1, 2011 7:02:28 GMT -5
Terms like "centerspeed" and "viewkick" are too complicated for the average CoD Kid. Some nosense bars are good enough for the casual gamers.
|
|
|
Post by ParaGoombaSlayer on May 1, 2011 7:31:03 GMT -5
If CoD games told you the actual gun stats, Treyarch would have to balance the weapons.
*release game with badly balanced weapon set*
*lie to everyone by showing fake gun stats*
I feel bad for people that think the gun stats are accurate, it's not their fault. You don't really expect the game to flat out lie to you. When I first started playing WaW Wii (my first CoD) I was misled by them.
|
|
|
Post by H8ters2 on May 1, 2011 16:37:57 GMT -5
At some point, all of us were mislead at some point in time. The fact of the matter is, that we are correct and the game is wrong. If you want to join with us, we have no problem. Just dont ask questions that are already answered on the Xanga page. I reccomend reading the whole page for every CoD page even if you dont own them. It will explain everything you need to know about all things CoD. To the OP, if you are not generally interested in chatting about the technical stuff, you probably won't find too much interesting conversation for you here.
-my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by stonewill on May 1, 2011 22:36:13 GMT -5
Treyarch didn't mess it up, at least not first. CoD4 had bars that weren't right, and from there it was like that. There are few right things with the bars, namely the Mobility one.
|
|
|
Post by H8ters2 on May 1, 2011 22:41:26 GMT -5
the "range" bar isnt too far off, and by that i mean the effective range you can use the gun efficently due to recoil and damage and such.
Same goes for "accuracy". i say theese things very lightly though
|
|
|
Post by stonewill on May 1, 2011 22:48:25 GMT -5
the "range" bar isnt too far off, and by that i mean the effective range you can use the gun efficently due to recoil and damage and such. Same goes for "accuracy". i say theese things very lightly though Yes, I agree. Range to me seems like the range before drop off, and Accuracy the ADS recoil. I had a friend bent on that accuracy was the accuracy of the hipfire.
|
|
|
Post by ghostfacekilla on May 4, 2011 8:34:35 GMT -5
I agree with everything you guys are saying. It was obvious right away the gun stats on the game were retarded. The only thing I've ever noticed differently between the 2 guns is that the AK's recoil is much more significant. But it's just hard accept a random person's gun stats whose not associated with treyarch at all as 100% fact. I mean I have the biggest penis in the world because i took the current one out of the guiness record book, measured mine and mines bigger. This is 100% fact. I even have the numbers to prove it. I really want to see treyarch confirm this data or AT LEAST understand how he turned them from game data to this graph a little better.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 4, 2011 8:48:55 GMT -5
Then you only need to read the forums a little more, though I suppose some sort of discussion of testing methods and data retrieval methods could perhaps be stickied for the uninitiated to be pointed to in case they need to see "proof". But yeah, the data here is very good, and as for the variables pulled from the files they are even better than verified by Treyarch because they are verified in the game files, which if you read up on you can go right into your own copy and extract the values yourself, (on PC).
That means pretty much all the data other than MW2, which has been determined through extensive testing and comparison to previous games.
Treyarch isn't going to confirm ANY data. They put the stat bars in the game because they don't think we even should have the hard data. They want us to sort of grope around and figure out the guns by trial and error rather than min/maxing our stats out mathematically. *shrug* It's a design decision, basically... Not one I agree with, but it's there. Personally that's one of the things I actually LOVE about RPGs... laying the stats bare for you to ogle and obsess over.
As suggested you can also verify any and all of these stats by simply going into the game and testing for yourself. It would certainly be time consuming to test them all, but surely testing just a few would be enough to convince you we know what the hell we're doing here?
|
|
|
Post by psijaka on May 4, 2011 14:51:10 GMT -5
^ I would agree with the above. Bros on this forum tend to take an open minded view on the data obtained from various sources, and submit data for "peer review".
I have got myself involved with calculating the effects of the recoil and centerspeed data (just becouse I am the sort of sad person that likes playing with numbers), and submitted my methods on the forum. This has led to some interesting discussions, as bros have pointed out problems with the methods that I used. This has enabled me to improve my methodology, and hopefully get more accurate results.
Same applies to Den's and subsequently Ishbane's weapon data chart; just take a look at the threads and you will see that a lot of discussion has gone on. Open minded discussion can only improve confidence in the data presented.
I do not know why Treyarch have not come clean on the weapon data; I do have a suspicion that they want to hide the fact that they botched weapon balance and variety (just look at all the 30-20 damage SMGs).
|
|
tacit
True Bro
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by tacit on May 5, 2011 19:27:52 GMT -5
It was always going to be difficult to retain variety in the game with so many SMGs. CoD4 had 5, W@W had 4, MW2 had 5. Black Ops has: - MP5K
- Skorpion
- MAC-11
- AK-74u
- Uzi
- PM63
- MPL
- Spectre
- Kiparis
|
|
|
Post by psijaka on May 8, 2011 9:42:38 GMT -5
Nah, they are just lazy. Or totally lacking in imagination.
Off post - it would be easy to introduce more SMG variety; mess with the fire rates, damage and range eg
- Make the Uzi with it's terrible recoil 35-20, but reduce the range to compensate
|
|