|
|
Post by duckcall00 on May 12, 2012 14:26:41 GMT -5
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/RPMHere 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
Brotius Maximus
Posts: 100,000,003
|
Post by Den on May 12, 2012 14:46:29 GMT -5
The Vector beats the P90 and F2000. The MP5 beats the AK74u, Commando, AK47 and RPD.
|
|
mw2baller
True Bro
Posts: 632
Member is Online
|
Post by mw2baller on May 12, 2012 15:02:24 GMT -5
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
True Bro
the brazilian guy
Posts: 1,966
|
Post by mmacola on May 12, 2012 15:13:44 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by angrybeast96 on May 12, 2012 15:15:51 GMT -5
Unless, they brought back game modes with more health, or a way to increase your character's health. Just a thought.
|
|
Robospy
True Bro
Look at that lovely cock
Posts: 723
|
Post by Robospy on May 12, 2012 16:39:37 GMT -5
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
|
|
|
|
Post by duckcall00 on May 12, 2012 17:30:30 GMT -5
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
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 12, 2012 17:31:59 GMT -5
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?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on May 12, 2012 19:22:21 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by angrybeast96 on May 12, 2012 20:28:19 GMT -5
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
True Bro
BITCOIN!?
Posts: 3,727
|
Post by asasa on May 12, 2012 20:30:44 GMT -5
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
|
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on May 12, 2012 20:31:46 GMT -5
The LMGs in MW3 are bad because they have more recoil than ARs. Reduce their recoil and they are balanced.
|
|
volgon
True Bro
Posts: 634
Member is Online
|
Post by volgon on May 12, 2012 20:59:55 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElysMustache on May 12, 2012 22:00:41 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyderby on May 12, 2012 22:03:25 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on May 12, 2012 22:22:33 GMT -5
No, of course I don't mean capacity.
|
|
clown
True Bro
My TBH is much more TBHy than your TBH, TBH.
Posts: 290
|
Post by clown on May 14, 2012 10:01:49 GMT -5
Sorry for whining, but I think ping (and lags) is a very important factor, too.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on May 14, 2012 11:07:59 GMT -5
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 
|
|