updated weapon stats

[legacy]

I'm not questioning if thats accurate, but what is the difference between 25 damage or 30 damage (both are 4 w/o SP, 3 w/ SP)

[novanleon]

Dec 2, 2009 14:41:31 GMT -5 legacy said:

I'm not questioning if thats accurate, but what is the difference between 25 damage or 30 damage (both are 4 w/o SP, 3 w/ SP)

25 * 1.4 * 1.4 = 49
30 * 1.4 * 1.4 = 58.8

The only difference I can see is that 25 would mean that 3 shots are still required even if the headshot multiplier is taken into account, while 30 would mean that a headshot plus any other hit would kill. So basically 25 would remove any advantage to getting headshots.

[morris]

A 25 damage weapon is also going to penetrate cover that much less effectively. A 30 damage weapon can lose 20% of its damage and still kill in 4 hits, where a 25 damage weapon will instantly drop from 4htk to 5 as soon as even one bullet goes through glass.

A 25 damage weapon is also 2 hits to kill instead of 1 in the 30 Health modes.

[legacy]

Yea, I didn't think about penetration effects

[dumdumpop]

So, does 30 Health Mode actually have 30 or does it have 35 health? Cause I know UMP is a one shot and so is magnum at any range. Even with silencer on UMP. Or does the M9 do 25 min damage? Cause it's not a one shot without silencer long range.

[imrlybord7]

Hardcore is 30 health.
lol @ what the filters will turn the above into

[dumdumpop]

Yeah pretty much. Glad IW had enough smarts to not make the M9 broken for hardcore.

What damage does a riot shield do? I didn't see it anywhere above, but I could have just read too fast. Because if one hit from a riot shield and one hit from any gun kills that could be helpful for synchronized teams that actually use riots.

[morris]

You shouldn't need the gun. It's two hits to kill with a Riot Shield, so it has to be doing at least 50 damage.

[acidsnow]

I need help understanding why IW made the UMP deal a minimum of 35 dmg... Why not just make it deal 30 damage? I find no reason to use any other SMG in 30 Health Mode except a silenced UMP! It seems overpowered

[imrlybord7]

Guns were not balanced for HC.
The P90 and Skorpion were the only good SMGs in HC in CoD4.
And I like the silenced TAR way more than the UMP for HC. Higher ROF and lower recoil.

[ick]

I have a long history of working with weapon stats in games and expressing them in chart and table form, especially Ghost Recon.

Unfortunately for COD4 and MW2 all i have to go on is the in-game charts. I do not have the weapon data files. Sounds like you guys have them.

Any interest in discussions on converting these numbers into a table like this?

www.ick.bz/weapons-lists.html

Not sure I understand your numbers though......

[mannon]

You should look at Den's CoD4 chart and read the info. It explains all that stats on that page I believe.

denkirson.xanga.com/632800688/call-of-duty-4/

We don't have the weapons data files for MW2, but the MP log has been found and is currently being used to collate all the exact damage values, and ROF has been very closely estimated based on recorded video. We still need a good way of testing weapons ranges, (some work has been done, though) although we can probably make a lot of assumptions about range based on CoD4.

It's a little harder to understand the stats because these are the real in game stats, not metadata like the stats it shows you on the weapons pages.

[ick]

In my experience with raw data from Ghost Recon and other games the best solution I have found is finding all data values.... and then using the best as rank 10 and the worst as rank 1 with the other values expressed algebraically between. This does two things especially when you use a line graph like on page 4 to tell the differences.

So for example you don't need to calculate that the AK47 does a damage of 64 and the P90 a damage of 23..... you just need to know the differences in the multiplier. Perhaps you guys have a better handle on this than I do so I am wasting my typing.....

Graphs of the underlying numbers
1. It clearly shows the best in each category and how close or far other weapons are in comparison. The weakest weapon is shown as a 1 the strongest is shown as a 10...etc.
2. This allows you to show programming techniques like "multipliers" in the simplest terms without having to figure out how damage is computed. All you need are the multiplier values and compare those numbers..
3. Often the relationship between values can easily be expressed through charting this way. For example, comparing multipliers and range values will show you that, say, the TAR21 does the highest damage but that its other stats are horrible in comparison.... that sort of thing.

If you guys can get me multipliers I already have the excel worksheet done

[ick]

Dec 5, 2009 13:52:45 GMT -5 mannon said:

You should look at Den's CoD4 chart and read the info. It explains all that stats on that page I believe.

denkirson.xanga.com/632800688/call-of-duty-4/

Excellent data on that chart.

The one advantage that MW two has is that "range" and "mobility" are the SAME for all weapons in a class... making it easier for charting... .you can put the SMG and the Rifleman weapons all on the same chart and it is more meaningfull. After only a few hours of play a player can tell the diferences in these two categories... leaivng you fire rate, damage, and accuracy to chart.

One thing that really makes these stats a whole lot LESS useful are the magnetic bullets. If you can get close the game generally scores a "hit".... which actually might make a LESS accurate weapon BETTER.... since the hit pattern is slightly larger you will tend to get a hit. Of course that is only true to a point. Once you get too wide of a spread it doesn't provide the same advantage.

[imrlybord7]

Wow, I was expecting it to turn Hardcore into 30 Health Mode, not Touch Football. Den never fails to amuse.

[Den]

[mannon]

Ick, we tend to find the actual damage values far more useful because it's not just about comparing how much damage one weapon does to another, but how few rounds will get us a kill. We know the health values for players, so figuring out shots to kill is more important than just strait damage. For example a magnum headshot with SP will do 98 damage, but not kill, which means both SP and the headshot didn't really do you too much good other than mebbe obscuring his vision a little more. You still need another round to finish him off. You would be better off dropping SP for CB instead and just using the Mag akimbo aiming for center mass. Then you get your 2HK as soon as you pull both triggers and all you've sacrificed is ADS on it, but your primary should handle that.

I also know that my FAMAS can kill in one burst at long range with SP on it, so I can put a silencer on it basically for free if I'm doing long range fighting and it still kills ever so slightly quicker in CQW.

We are the grognards here, we don't just want a general idea of how the weapons perform relative to each other. We want cold hard facts, and then we find interesting more subtle ways to use the system.

A more generalized chart probably would be better for the layman that doesn't understand the game mechanics... but then, that is what IW's metadata in game statistics are for.

That said, there are definitely many interesting things you can do with the numbers. I encourage experimentation. I have a rather large table in excel that I populated with Den's W@W data and then built lots of formulas to show me some interesting things. I probably spent more time with it than actually playing towards the end since I was getting bored with W@W. ;p

I haven't converted it for MW2 yet since we've been lacking some data, though the main things seem to be coming in now more or less.

[ssog]

Dec 6, 2009 18:03:48 GMT -5 Den said:

I bet you prefer flag football to touch football because you like the killcam.

[ick]

Dec 6, 2009 19:05:15 GMT -5 mannon said:

Ick, we tend to find the actual damage values far more useful because it's not just about comparing how much damage one weapon does to another, but how few rounds will get us a kill. We know the health values for players, so figuring out shots to kill is more important than just strait damage. For example a magnum headshot with SP will do 98 damage, but not kill, which means both SP and the headshot didn't really do you too much good other than mebbe obscuring his vision a little more. You still need another round to finish him off. You would be better off dropping SP for CB instead and just using the Mag akimbo aiming for center mass. Then you get your 2HK as soon as you pull both triggers and all you've sacrificed is ADS on it, but your primary should handle that.

I also know that my FAMAS can kill in one burst at long range with SP on it, so I can put a silencer on it basically for free if I'm doing long range fighting and it still kills ever so slightly quicker in CQW.

We are the grognards here, we don't just want a general idea of how the weapons perform relative to each other. We want cold hard facts, and then we find interesting more subtle ways to use the system.

A more generalized chart probably would be better for the layman that doesn't understand the game mechanics... but then, that is what IW's metadata in game statistics are for.

That said, there are definitely many interesting things you can do with the numbers. I encourage experimentation. I have a rather large table in excel that I populated with Den's W@W data and then built lots of formulas to show me some interesting things. I probably spent more time with it than actually playing towards the end since I was getting bored with W@W. ;p

I haven't converted it for MW2 yet since we've been lacking some data, though the main things seem to be coming in now more or less.

Good points, although they both should result in the same conclusions and the same "ranking". Your desire for bottom line hit points damage is justifyable, I will agree there.

Ghost recon was a very unusual game with a LOT of very similar weapons with very minor differences in stats. It was virtually impossible for a player to try a weapon long enough enough to get adequate experience with a weapon to tell its true virtue. 100 kills really wasn't enough to illustrate characteristics to a person.. before moving on to other similar weapons. Accurate data was key in that game. A player on his own had to have such a large testing sample size it was impossble for virtually any player to assess differences.

Games like Halo don't lend themselves well to much analysis because 1. the weapons are so vastly different and 2. there are really very few weapons.

I don't see MW2 or COD4 as being that difficult for a player to determine what he likes/dislikes. The weapons are similar yet different enough and I don't think it takes too many runs with a weapon to tell what works and doesn't work... what weapon is strong and what is weak doesn't take too much play-time to determine. What seems to work best for almost everyone has been to determine the baseline "strongest" characteristic and compare all others to that standard. Of course other aspects like how damage is modeled over a range is also pertinent informaiton... so I certainly see why you are trying to calcualte that.

I personally use charts of weapons like this to see where my weapon of choice falls on the chart... and what weapons have characteristics right beside my favorite, In this way I can "decide" to try another weapon that is statistically similar to, say, the FAMAS.... but gives me more stopping power with only a small loss in range. Charts allow me to do that type of thinking faster and more accurately.

There is one overriding factor that screws up this game though.... the magnetic bullets. Whilst I agree that range is very different for different weapons..... the magnetic bullets makes range somewhat of a non-issue within similar weapon types.... and it also adversely affects accuracy differences.

At any rate, I enjoy the discussion and look forward to some hard data.

[dchoi41]

The problem is that weapons are really just a part of the equation, and any cursory ranking will miss all of the nuance, and with damage in increments of 5, there's more nuance than ever before.

In CoD4, I just had frag x3, stopping power, and steady aim, and just used that for every weapon that wasn't a sniper rifle. In almost every case, stopping power was my best option because it basically decreased the number of shots I had to land by 1, across the board.

But in MW2, the benefit isn't always prevalent (i.e. when bullets do 35 damage), and there are some better contenders for slot 2 perks. Granular detail is necessary to make intelligent decisions.

[ick]

Excellent point.... the only other thing I would say is that my system is an algabraic base 10 ranking system.

Not increments of 5.

Sure, doesn't go the whole way through the calculations and nuances. ... the advantage is it doesn't require anything beyond weapon data multiplyers.

[toysrme]

when you say magnetic bullets, are you reffering to auto-aim on console? because with it disabled you'd do no better than half your accuracy with a controller.

For the weapons that do x5 damage, just consider it a small amount of extra kills per 100 you recieve for stealing someone else's kill. Same reason M14+SP was so good in COD4. 70 base damage doesn't make since VS 50 if you take it on a purely "shots to kill" basis when you're the ONLY person shooting at someone.
But you start having multiple people shooting at a target and suddenly that extra damage will net you LOTS of kills you can steal that otherwise have been nothing more than an assist! It's no longer a race between who's automatic gun synchronizes+aim+lag to race to the last bullet - you just gotta hit the guy 1 time at any point after the first bullet and he'll fall over dead!

[ick]

Dec 7, 2009 20:24:20 GMT -5 toysrme said:

when you say magnetic bullets, are you reffering to auto-aim on console? because with it disabled you'd do no better than half your accuracy with a controller.

Well, this game does have somewhat of a "sticky" aim when your crosshairs pass an eneny.... and lead the player into "iron sights on target" when you pull the left trigger..... but actually I am referring to the same phenomenon that gives you an automatic headshot in Halo games tends to give you hits in this game.

When that reticule on the sniper rifle turns red in Halo you get a hit. Same mechanics in MW2. Is that accurate?

[mannon]

Sounds like aim assist to me.

[ick]

Dec 7, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 mannon said:

Sounds like aim assist to me.

Agreed, but there are two kinds of aim assist.

The first tends to "assist" putting your crosshairs on target. The other tends to score hits when you fire even if your crosshairs are a bit off.

[mannon]

The console versions could possibly even have larger hitboxes, though I'm a little skeptical since that would introduce all sorts of glitches like shooting someone through a wall without any penetration.

Not that there aren't glitches... heh

[cptmacmillan]

One thing I've observed is that throwing knives will do the effect Ick is talking about (playing on PC) and it's very visible. If they come within an inch of the other guy but he's off to the side they'll suddenly change direction midair and still hit him, which is funny on end-match slowmo killcam.

[ick]

Dec 8, 2009 0:24:54 GMT -5 cptmacmillan said:

One thing I've observed is that throwing knives will do the effect Ick is talking about (playing on PC) and it's very visible. If they come within an inch of the other guy but he's off to the side they'll suddenly change direction midair and still hit him, which is funny on end-match slowmo killcam.

Exactly, that kind of effect really makes "accuracy" values meaningless... or at least mitigates their effect.

In my experience games tend to utilize that kind of knife effect with all weapons.... it just seems they "ramp" up the effect for items like the MW2 throwing knife...... so it is in the game for every bullet and knife... it is just accentuated more for the throwing knife.

[natedogeight]

Nov 19, 2009 14:33:35 GMT -5 individual said:

Here are my tests, in split-screen mode on the Xbox 360, with normal health mode, firing at the enemy's foot:

I think you're jumping to conclusions. Everyone who has played the game and payed attention knows the SCAR, TAR-21, AK-47, etc. all kill in 2 shots up close with stopping power. Two things are possible: Either you didn't do your testing correctly(I'm guessing you did do it right), or there are more modifiers we don't know about.

I've personally shot a guy with a SP M16 silenced and hit him with all 3 rounds from a burst and didn't get a kill. I know there's a reason, but it would seem this game just isn't 100% straightforward when it comes to shots needed for a kill.

[ick]

Dec 8, 2009 13:50:14 GMT -5 natedogeight said:

I think you're jumping to conclusions. Everyone who has played the game and payed attention knows the SCAR, TAR-21, AK-47, etc. all kill in 2 shots up close with stopping power. Two things are possible: Either you didn't do your testing correctly(I'm guessing you did do it right), or there are more modifiers we don't know about.

I can't speak to MW2 direclty...... but I know in Ghost Recon the damage "randomness" was such that it took a sample size of 1,000 kills with each weapon in order to determine accurate stopping power results. Even then, statistically that sample size didn't "weed out" bad runs, improperly recorded data, or anomalies where as a player you had a bad run of randomness that ran against you with a particualr weapon.

This makes in-game testing for stopping power by shooting a man in the foot dubious at best. Your number of test subjects with recorded hits to kill simply becomes un-managable..... especially when you need an adequate sample size for EVERY weapon.

Therefore.... making the underlying damage multiplyer KEY.... possibly moreso than HOW THE DAMAGE IS ACTUALLY CALCULATED. The "randomness" of damage developers put into games introduces a variable that cannot be accounted for.

Raw damage numbers stripped from weapon data files is the only true way to know for sure the differences in each weapon.