Range stats, what do they mean?

[individual]

The "range" stats on callofduty.wikia.com for both MW and MW2... What are they based on?

Currently, it says the MP5k's range is 900 to 1300m. But for the P90 it's 1000-1300m, same for the Mini-Uzi, for the Vector it's 900-1100m, and for the UMP it's 700-800M.

This seems to suggest that the UMP has the worst range of any SMG, but the MP5k has the best. But it's the other way around?

I understand where you would get a "max" effective range from: the distance at which you can kill somebody without burst firing.

I'm not sure what a "minimum" range would be determined by, though.

[individual]

Ah, I think I see what it is. They define min. range as the point at which damage starts falling and define max. range at the point at which it reaches the bottom.

This is a pretty bad definition of range, isn't it? Although a weapon's damage might drop out at certain points, if it has higher damage overall, a higher rate of fire and\or less recoil, it can have better "effective range" than a weapon with damage drop-offs that happen slightly farther out.

The above are examples. With or without Stopping Power, see how easy it is to kill at range with an MP5k vs the UMP.

[chyros]

Jan 4, 2010 16:41:41 GMT -5 individual said:

Ah, I think I see what it is. They define min. range as the point at which damage starts falling and define max. range at the point at which it reaches the bottom.

This is a pretty bad definition of range, isn't it?

Not really, this is the official definition of it in the game.

[individual]

Jan 4, 2010 17:04:03 GMT -5 chyros said:

Jan 4, 2010 16:41:41 GMT -5 individual said:

Ah, I think I see what it is. They define min. range as the point at which damage starts falling and define max. range at the point at which it reaches the bottom.

This is a pretty bad definition of range, isn't it?

Not really, this is the official definition of it in the game.

So? Could the developers themselves not be using a poor definition?

Wouldn't you agree that the UMP has the best "range" of every SMG and the MP5k has the worst?

[chyros]

Jan 4, 2010 17:13:56 GMT -5 individual said:

Jan 4, 2010 17:04:03 GMT -5 chyros said:

Not really, this is the official definition of it in the game.

So? Could the developers themselves not be using a poor definition?

Wouldn't you agree that the UMP has the best "range" of every SMG and the MP5k has the worst?

No, I wouldn't, because the UMP has the lowest range values. Same why the FAL has the worst AR range.

[ssog]

Jan 4, 2010 17:13:56 GMT -5 individual said:

Jan 4, 2010 17:04:03 GMT -5 chyros said:

Not really, this is the official definition of it in the game.

So? Could the developers themselves not be using a poor definition?

Wouldn't you agree that the UMP has the best "range" of every SMG and the MP5k has the worst?

If you tell me that the UMP deals 40-35 damage and has a range of XXX/YYY, then I can form concrete and objective decisions about the gun. If you tell me that the UMP has "really good" range and the MP5 doesn't, then I can't form any objective opinions, I just have to rely on yours, which may or may not be accurate for my own personal playstyle.

Range is just HALF of the equation. If you list max/min damage and max/min range, I can tell exactly how much damage a gun is dealing at any given range. Sometimes a gun with a shorter range deals more damage because it has a higher minimum damage, which is why the UMP beats the MP5 at long range despite the shorter range value. Random and subjective discussions of how a gun performs at a certain range don't tell me anything.

[chyros]

Thanks ssog, you put that a lot better than I did xD .

[mannon]

It depends if you're talking about the weapon's actual stats or some version of metastats like the bars displayed in game.

Here we generally deal in the hard stuff. Trying to take into account things like recoil and sway and iron sights, ect gets very subjective so there's no good way to lock down a proper formula to have a definitive effective range statistic that everyone will agree on.

And consider that SP generally makes it take one less hit to kill. For most weapons that is literally a boost to the weapon's effective range.

[mannon]

The FAL has low range because it's a 2 hit kill at max damage, without Stopping Power, something none of the other AR's can do and even when the range drops it to minimum damage it's still more or less just dropping to a value close to that of the other ARs, so it's only going to be outdamaged by the other AR's for a narrow strip in medium range, and even then only if you don't equip a holographic sight to take advantage of that 40 min damage boost. >,>

With a Holographic the FAL's damage even at long range is as good as the best other AR's and LMG's and still higher at close range. Thus the effective range is definitely a different story. They just dropped the range down low to keep it from being a total monster, though they may have hit it a little too hard with the nerf stick on the recoil.

Still, though. I've actually been enjoying it. Three hits to kill at long range without SP is something the other AR's can only dream about. LMG's can do it, but have their own drawbacks. And if you really want to be dangerous pack on SP and that Holo and the FAL is almost a silenced M21 with less zoom, better hipfire, and no sway. Of course a sniper using a silencer and SP could always use the WA2000 instead so they can still get 1 hit kills, which is something a FAL cannot do in softcore at long range, even with a headshot. But both may be useful and in hardcore you would never even need SP or the Holo to 1HK with a FAL unless it's a penetration shot. Though if you pack a thermal scope it will sway, just like the other ARs. I'd still use Holo over RDS since the RDS is misaligned, though and hell the extra 5 damage might be handy in penetration shots.

[individual]

Jan 4, 2010 19:12:44 GMT -5 ssog said:

Jan 4, 2010 17:13:56 GMT -5 individual said:

So? Could the developers themselves not be using a poor definition?

Wouldn't you agree that the UMP has the best "range" of every SMG and the MP5k has the worst?

If you tell me that the UMP deals 40-35 damage and has a range of XXX/YYY, then I can form concrete and objective decisions about the gun. If you tell me that the UMP has "really good" range and the MP5 doesn't, then I can't form any objective opinions, I just have to rely on yours, which may or may not be accurate for my own personal playstyle.

Range is just HALF of the equation. If you list max/min damage and max/min range, I can tell exactly how much damage a gun is dealing at any given range. Sometimes a gun with a shorter range deals more damage because it has a higher minimum damage, which is why the UMP beats the MP5 at long range despite the shorter range value. Random and subjective discussions of how a gun performs at a certain range don't tell me anything.

Range is most precisely defined as "the likelihood to kill at a certain distance".

In long range, its determined primarily by recoil and TTK. At close range, it's determined primarily by ADS time, hip-fire accuracy, TTK, and firing rate.

I do think that the info for "Range" is useful, but just think the term is misleading because people might mistake it for meaning that it's actually effective at that range.

I don't think such discussions are "random", but merely that quantifying the effective range of each weapon is difficult to do, because of all the factors involved.

[chyros]

Jan 5, 2010 9:06:11 GMT -5 individual said:

Jan 4, 2010 19:12:44 GMT -5 ssog said:

If you tell me that the UMP deals 40-35 damage and has a range of XXX/YYY, then I can form concrete and objective decisions about the gun. If you tell me that the UMP has "really good" range and the MP5 doesn't, then I can't form any objective opinions, I just have to rely on yours, which may or may not be accurate for my own personal playstyle.

Range is just HALF of the equation. If you list max/min damage and max/min range, I can tell exactly how much damage a gun is dealing at any given range. Sometimes a gun with a shorter range deals more damage because it has a higher minimum damage, which is why the UMP beats the MP5 at long range despite the shorter range value. Random and subjective discussions of how a gun performs at a certain range don't tell me anything.

Range is most precisely defined as "the likelihood to kill at a certain distance".

In long range, its determined primarily by recoil and TTK. At close range, it's determined primarily by ADS time, hip-fire accuracy, TTK, and firing rate.

I do think that the info for "Range" is useful, but just think the term is misleading because people might mistake it for meaning that it's actually effective at that range.

I don't think such discussions are "random", but merely that quantifying the effective range of each weapon is difficult to do, because of all the factors involved.

Well you just keep using "range" your way, and the rest of us will use the other definition, then .

[mannon]

The min/max ranges are measures of length, what would you have us call them besides range? If you don't understand the game's underlying stats then obviously they won't be that useful for you anyway. If you want to discuss subjective range estimations then that's something else entirely from what we generally do here.

[individual]

Jan 5, 2010 20:14:26 GMT -5 mannon said:

The min/max ranges are measures of length, what would you have us call them besides range? If you don't understand the game's underlying stats then obviously they won't be that useful for you anyway. If you want to discuss subjective range estimations then that's something else entirely from what we generally do here.

"Range of damage" isn't the same thing as "Effective Range". When you use the term "Range", you're using it in a way that's only applied to COD's stats on the wiki and wouldn't be used by laymen, since IRL, weapons don't become less powerful in fixed increments of distance.

[mannon]

And this message board is not filled with laymen, but with CoD grognards that want to understand the guts of the game.

[ssog]

Jan 5, 2010 9:06:11 GMT -5 individual said:

Range is most precisely defined as "the likelihood to kill at a certain distance".

In long range, its determined primarily by recoil and TTK. At close range, it's determined primarily by ADS time, hip-fire accuracy, TTK, and firing rate.

I do think that the info for "Range" is useful, but just think the term is misleading because people might mistake it for meaning that it's actually effective at that range.

I don't think such discussions are "random", but merely that quantifying the effective range of each weapon is difficult to do, because of all the factors involved.

Actually, range is most precisely defined as "distance". Period, end of definition. Just look for yourself. Max damage range = max damage distance. Min damage range = min damage distance. Long range generally means the distance at which the gun is dealing minimum damage. Short range generally means the distance at which the gun is dealing maximum damage.

Quantifying a weapon's effectiveness at a certain range to any degree of specificity is functionally impossible because of the myriad different skillsets and playstyles of the people who play this game. Quantifying a weapon's DAMAGE at a certain range, on the other hand, is easy to do with a high degree of specificity. Beyond that, if you want to discuss how WELL a gun performs at a certain range, then don't start a thread asking "what guns have the best range", start a thread asking "what guns perform best at a certain range". That makes it clear that you're talking about subjective effectiveness rather than objective data. As it stands, the current range data is not the slightest bit unclear or misleading.