Ideal Balance Formula

[duckcall00]

I have been thinking about what I would like to see in terms of Weapon Balance in BOII. I have been looking at it from a numbers standpoint (which is why I decided to post in "Hey, Den" instead of "Hey, Guy").
In this thread I talked about how "IW uses some chaotic process that I don't understand to make ever weapon different" and achieve a near-perfect balance.

I have been looking to find some comprehensive way to make fully balanced weapons. I think that Damage and RPM should vary inversely. Here is the formula I came up with:Damage = 30000/RPM

Here are some example of it:
RPM= 600 Damage= 50 (M60?)
RPM= 650 Damage= 46 (RPD?)
RPM= 700 Damage= 43 (AK47?)
RPM= 750 Damage= 40 (Commando?)
RPM= 800 Damage= 38 (AK74u?)
RPM= 850 Damage= 35 (MP5?)
RPM= 900 Damage= 33 (F2000?)
RPM= 950 Damage= 32 (P90?)
RPM= 1000 Damage= 30 (Vector?)

The damage and rate of fire seem like they would make an amazingly balanced game. But of course, recoil is one of the 3 key variables in creating CoD gun balance. And it is by far the most complicated.

So what do the Bros think of my proposed balance formula? Do they have any idea on how to fit recoil into the equation?

[Den]

RPM= 600 Damage= 50 (M60?)
RPM= 650 Damage= 46 (RPD?)
RPM= 700 Damage= 43 (AK47?)
RPM= 750 Damage= 40 (Commando?)
RPM= 800 Damage= 38 (AK74u?)
RPM= 850 Damage= 35 (MP5?)
RPM= 900 Damage= 33 (F2000?)
RPM= 950 Damage= 32 (P90?)
RPM= 1000 Damage= 30 (Vector?)

The Vector beats the P90 and F2000.
The MP5 beats the AK74u, Commando, AK47 and RPD.

[mw2baller]

34 damage is just as good as 49 without factoring in range. Basically gun damage doesn't matter, only the amount of bullets needed to kill.

[mmacola]

I believe it does counts to a certain measure, for example 42 damage is enough to kill in one bullet to the head and another to the body, whereas 36 is the minimum required to be able to reduce the number of bullets to kill if you only hit the head; all this considering 1.4 head multiplier. Sure, from 41 to 37, it doesn't make a difference except as you said, range.

[angrybeast96]

Unless, they brought back game modes with more health, or a way to increase your character's health. Just a thought.

[Robospy]

There are also other things to consider with gun balance.

- If a gun has very high recoil, no matter how overpowered it is, nobody will use it (MW2 L86 LSW)
- Mag Size
- Reload time
- Class (LMGs should have naturally high damage and RoF, Snipers very high damage etc.)
- Mobility stats vs. other weapons in the class (ADS time, Draw times, Hipfire)
- Attachment options

Those above are the main ones, all have to be considered (except the first is more subjective that factual), gun balance isn't just damage and recoil

[duckcall00]

Certain weapons may win in sheer Time To Kill. But Weapon Balance if way more complicated than that. (see here)

The 3 main factors in balance are Damage, RoF, and Recoil. As I mentioned in the OP, recoil is way more complicated than damage or RPM, so I am temporarily leaving it out until somebody can solve it.

Those factors are followed in importance by Range, Clip Size, ADS time, and Reload time. In most cases they are just held constant based on what class they belong to. There is no need to include them in the formula.

Another thing to think about is that one persons perception of balance is probably different from another's. I like weapons that kill relatively quickly. Someone else might think that damage and RPM should vary based on a parabola or hyperbola. I think they should vary based on a line.

But with only 2 of the 3 main factors of balance, whatever formula is reached will not be perfect. All I know is that when ViewKick and CenterSpeed are introduced to the formula, its going to get a lot more complicated.

[cmck]

For the recoil how about a simple way. RPD gets the least recoil for that amount of bullets to kill and the commando gets the most recoil. The faster the TTK for that amount of bullets gets the worse recoil. It does have a problem with headshot multipliers though. The RPD will be able will be like the MW3 acr. Steady and it will get one bullet off for a headshots. Is the headshots a problem or will the higher rates of fire balance that out?

[Marvel4]

Damage shouldn't be based on rate of fire, it should be based on ammo (like in Battlefield 3). Weapons with more damage or a higher rate of fire should have more recoil. That's balanced.

[angrybeast96]

May 12, 2012 19:22:21 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

Damage shouldn't be based on rate of fire, it should be based on ammo (like in Battlefield 3). Weapons with more damage or a higher rate of fire should have more recoil. That's balanced.

That makes LMGs arguably useless in a CoD setting, if I understand you correctly. Bigger Mags with low damage is not what a LMG is, sorry. LMGs are pretty bad as is, considering they got nerfed hard in MW3 (-7.5% move speed), having lower damage would be insult to injury.

[asasa]

There is no practical formula for weapon balance. Far too many factors and varying importance at certain (50 vs 49 damage) outta much better to look at them individually-and at all possible factors for each gun than to spend a lifetime cooking up a formula that accounts for everything

[Marvel4]

The LMGs in MW3 are bad because they have more recoil than ARs. Reduce their recoil and they are balanced.

[volgon]

May 12, 2012 20:28:19 GMT -5 angrybeast96 said:

May 12, 2012 19:22:21 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

Damage shouldn't be based on rate of fire, it should be based on ammo (like in Battlefield 3). Weapons with more damage or a higher rate of fire should have more recoil. That's balanced.

That makes LMGs arguably useless in a CoD setting, if I understand you correctly. Bigger Mags with low damage is not what a LMG is, sorry. LMGs are pretty bad as is, considering they got nerfed hard in MW3 (-7.5% move speed), having lower damage would be insult to injury.

I think he meant ammo TYPE. In BF3 most (or all) the weapons firing 5.56 ammo do the same damage and the same goes for weapons firing 7.62. This is because ballistics (damage and muzzle velocity) don't drastically change when fired from different weapons irl. That being said, I don't think it would work that well in COD since it's supposed to be more of an arcade shooter than BF3. I like having guns that do different damages because it becomes easier to assign guns more interesting niches than what you'll find in Battlefield.

[ElysMustache]

May 12, 2012 20:59:55 GMT -5 volgon said:

This is because ballistics (damage and muzzle velocity) don't drastically change when fired from different weapons irl.

M16 is rated to 10% further effective range IRL than an M4. This is due to the 20" barrel versus 14.5" barrel, resulting in 200 fps greater muzzle velocity (550 meters vs. 500 meters, in case you were wondering.

Additionally, bullet weight of military ammo in this cartridge varies from 55 to 77 grains.

[kirbyderby]

May 12, 2012 20:59:55 GMT -5 volgon said:

May 12, 2012 20:28:19 GMT -5 angrybeast96 said:

That makes LMGs arguably useless in a CoD setting, if I understand you correctly. Bigger Mags with low damage is not what a LMG is, sorry. LMGs are pretty bad as is, considering they got nerfed hard in MW3 (-7.5% move speed), having lower damage would be insult to injury.

I think he meant ammo TYPE. In BF3 most (or all) the weapons firing 5.56 ammo do the same damage and the same goes for weapons firing 7.62. This is because ballistics (damage and muzzle velocity) don't drastically change when fired from different weapons irl. That being said, I don't think it would work that well in COD since it's supposed to be more of an arcade shooter than BF3. I like having guns that do different damages because it becomes easier to assign guns more interesting niches than what you'll find in Battlefield.

He might have meant ammo capacity as well... the weapons with higher damage in the assault and engineer classes also only have a 20 round magazine.

[Marvel4]

No, of course I don't mean capacity.

[clown]

Sorry for whining, but I think ping (and lags) is a very important factor, too.

[j1000]

May 12, 2012 14:26:41 GMT -5 duckcall00 said:

So what do the Bros think of my proposed balance formula? Do they have any idea on how to fit recoil into the equation?

I don't think it works to try to do balance using a formula. There are too many important subtleties at play.

I think the balance "formula" is simple:
"Is there a score-improving reason to use weapon X over weapon Y?"
"Is there a score-improving reason to use weapon Y over weapon X?"

If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then you have at least partial balance. The perfect example is if weapon X is a sniper rifle, and weapon Y is a shotgun. There is a reason to prefer either over the other, in different situations or in different playstyles. Weapon balance is easy with just two weapons. The tricky part is doing it with 44