A "Formula" for Comparing Recoil Stats

[probaddie]

Aug 6, 2012 0:28:24 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

The MP44 should be in the Assault Rifle category.

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.

Edit: MP44 is now an assault rifle.

[Marvel4]

Ok, that's wrong. Rate of fire for manual action weapons is fireTime (time until rechambering starts) + rechamberTime (time until you can shoot again).

See this thread: denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4330

[probaddie]

Aug 6, 2012 0:40:14 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

Ok, that's wrong. Rate of fire for manual action weapons is fireTime (time until rechambering starts) + rechamberTime (time until you can shoot again).

See this thread: denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4330

Damnit. I was hoping rechamberTime only applied to rifles . I think a mistake that big will have to be corrected tomorrow.

[mmacola]

Bolt Actions fire rates are really quick. At least in MW3, they are 1200rpm.

[probaddie]

Okay, I think everything's fixed now, as per Marvel's corrections.

[Marvel4]

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.

[probaddie]

Aug 6, 2012 17:40:12 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

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.

[probaddie]

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.

[probaddie]

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?

[mmacola]

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.

[probaddie]

Aug 7, 2012 23:55:28 GMT -5 mmacola said:

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.

[Marvel4]

The others only got increased damage.

[probaddie]

Aug 7, 2012 23:59:34 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

The others only got increased damage.

Okay. I'll get the charts updated within the hour.

P.S. -- I nominate Marvel to be the Official Den Kirson Boards Editor-in-Chief.

[probaddie]

And it's done. Check 'em out.

Dat PM-9. First gun I'll be using when the patch hits PC, I tell you what.

[mmacola]

Dat PM-9³.

With Specialist bonus it must awesome. Stock is already pretty good.

[Tyzerra]

Aug 8, 2012 0:52:08 GMT -5 mmacola said:

Dat PM-9³.

With Specialist bonus it must awesome. Stock is already pretty good.

I've not used Specialist on the PM-9 yet. With Rapid Fire + Ex Mags that thing would be ridiculous on Specialist Bonus! Geez!

[Marvel4]

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?

[eLantern]

Aug 8, 2012 6:10:41 GMT -5 Mousey said:

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.

[probaddie]

Aug 8, 2012 7:54:23 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

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...]

[probaddie]

Aug 8, 2012 14:30:41 GMT -5 probaddie said:

Aug 8, 2012 7:54:23 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

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!)

(Also, Brick needs to read his PMs. Grrr.... .)

[probaddie]

I've just updated the MW3 charts with results for the shotguns. They are as unsurprising as you expect them to be.

Brick2urface has also agreed to help me get the GunKick numbers from Mark Rubin, so here's hoping. Thanks again, Brick.

[probaddie]

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.

[MoopusMaximus]

It's true. Kick only reduces by 10%. Seen Here:
setMarksman()
{
   self endon ( "death" );
   self endon ( "disconnect" );
   level endon ( "game_ended" );
   
   self setRecoilScale( 10 );
   self.recoilScale = 10;
}


[probaddie]

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.


Okay, everything's fixed. Enjoy.

[Tyzerra]

We need those GunKick values, dammit! Spreadsheet looks awesome though. Keep up that good work Pro!

[probaddie]

Thanks to Marvel tracking down the MW2 files, I now have recoil statistic results for that game:

MW2 (unbiased): docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnFeORnwotj_dHMzYi1KdVpNeWtTa3c2X19DSjIzUGc#gid=0
MW2 (biased): docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnFeORnwotj_dElMNDltNVFHMWNBNm9jNV9KS0I3dnc#gid=0

Links will be provided in the OP as well.

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.

In any case, enjoy the MW2 results.

[Tyzerra]

I haven't done any measuring, but I kind of agree with Mousey. We've just been discussing it and we both think that using an MW3 player model would be better for ratios: www.gameforcegamefactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/modern-warfare-3-06.jpg

[thedjinn]

Wouldn't the easiest method to get the "true" accuracy of a gun be to compare recoil plots to avatar-sized targets at different ranges and calculate the percentage of shots that strike said target (over a large volume of fire of course)?

You could come up with a number for 3-round burst, 5-round burst, 10-round spray and 30 round mag dumps and (after getting a handful of ranges and their accuracy values) compute a line of best fit that graphs range as the independent and accuracy as the dependent for each of the different burst values.

I only mention this because I believe that Den had one point managed to determine that one point of recoil was equivalent to such-and-such distance on the screen; a simple screen grab accompanied by some image manipulation should allow you to plot recoil graphs to in-game targets easily.

[probaddie]

Added links to W@W results, as requested by Marvel4.

[probaddie]

Nov 13, 2012 5:28:35 GMT -5 thedjinn said:

Wouldn't the easiest method to get the "true" accuracy of a gun be to compare recoil plots to avatar-sized targets at different ranges and calculate the percentage of shots that strike said target (over a large volume of fire of course)?

You could come up with a number for 3-round burst, 5-round burst, 10-round spray and 30 round mag dumps and (after getting a handful of ranges and their accuracy values) compute a line of best fit that graphs range as the independent and accuracy as the dependent for each of the different burst values.

I only mention this because I believe that Den had one point managed to determine that one point of recoil was equivalent to such-and-such distance on the screen; a simple screen grab accompanied by some image manipulation should allow you to plot recoil graphs to in-game targets easily.

I understand what you're getting at. I wouldn't want to be the guy counting thousands of dots on a screenie, though. And you would need thousands of shots to get reliable results that way.

A more simulation-based method might be possible -- if we could get reliable measurements of an in-game player model. It would provide a more "concrete" way of expressing the weapons' accuracy, no doubt. There might be something I can do to remedy that with these results in the meantime.

But there's something to be said for the exactitude of this method, since it's not subject to the possibility of exceptional data. It's not that your idea is bad, but I will contend that it definitely isn't easier and much more difficult to know how reliable the results might be..