Advanced Warfare Plots: Heavy Weapons

[probaddie]

EM1

[probaddie]

Pytaek

[probaddie]

XMG

[probaddie]

EPM3

[probaddie]

Ameli (Post-Rapid Fire Nerf)

[blastard]

Wow, thanks for all your hard work Probaddie! You seem to be missing the plots of the Ameli base etc with RF and RF with grip, however.

[probaddie]

Feb 17, 2015 12:24:22 GMT -5 blastard said:

Wow, thanks for all your hard work Probaddie! You seem to be missing the plots of the Ameli base etc with RF and RF with grip, however.

Fixed. Thank you. (Another one down....)

[probaddie]

There was a serious error with the EPM3: I used the pre-patch version. That has now been fixed.

[zimpoo]

God bless you probaddie, god bless you.

[ninopettis]

The only things I notice with the Pytaek are more differences with rounded firetimes that could just be due to variance.

There's the same thing with the Ameli, only the difference is much more severe and can't just be variance. I'm talking about the Swift/Whalehorn vs Spacer/Accelerated. They all have +10% viewkick. The Spacer and the Accelerated both get a small firerate increase, but they get frame rounded at 60fps, both with and without rapid fire. These four guns should all get very similar results, but you can see that isn't the case. This is the same issue that the Bals used to have in the Assault Rifles thread, with Obsidian Steed vs Carbon and Virtue vs Marksman, before you fixed it.

The only other thing I don't get is the Ameli Crafty. Why aren't its results the same as the base Ameli plots that have foregrip? They have the same viewkick and firerate, yet the Crafty is significantly less accurate (0.38 vs 0.52 and 0.98 vs 1.38). Is this an error, or is the foregrip attached to the Crafty different to the regular foregrip?

[probaddie]

Feb 24, 2015 23:22:52 GMT -5 ninopettis said:

There's the same thing with the Ameli, only the difference is much more severe and can't just be variance. I'm talking about the Swift/Whalehorn vs Spacer/Accelerated. They all have +10% viewkick. The Spacer and the Accelerated both get a small firerate increase, but they get frame rounded at 60fps, both with and without rapid fire. These four guns should all get very similar results, but you can see that isn't the case. This is the same issue that the Bals used to have in the Assault Rifles thread, with Obsidian Steed vs Carbon and Virtue vs Marksman, before you fixed it.

I think this is another "16ms vs. 17ms" issue; if you haven't read my response to your Submachine Guns post yet, you should do that now before reading on. The Spacer/Accelerated get their shots in at exactly 5 frames (0.017s * 5 = 0.085s == 0.085s fireTime) but the Swift/Whale Horn both need 6 frames to fire their shots (0.017s * 6 = 0.102s > 0.09s fireTime).

The only other thing I don't get is the Ameli Crafty. Why aren't its results the same as the base Ameli plots that have foregrip? They have the same viewkick and firerate, yet the Crafty is significantly less accurate (0.38 vs 0.52 and 0.98 vs 1.38). Is this an error, or is the foregrip attached to the Crafty different to the regular foregrip?

No, this is an error: I did not apply the +10% improvement to the Crafty's CenterSpeed that comes with the Grip. I'll fix that right now.

Also, keep in mind for your spreadsheet that the stance differencees are wrong. I'm only keeping them until the next balance path in the hopes that this is a bug; we have reason to believe based on game code and the fact that snipers do get a stance benefit that there should be a stance benefit to heavy weapons as well.

[ninopettis]

Feb 25, 2015 3:21:58 GMT -5 probaddie said:

Feb 24, 2015 23:22:52 GMT -5 ninopettis said:

There's the same thing with the Ameli, only the difference is much more severe and can't just be variance. I'm talking about the Swift/Whalehorn vs Spacer/Accelerated. They all have +10% viewkick. The Spacer and the Accelerated both get a small firerate increase, but they get frame rounded at 60fps, both with and without rapid fire. These four guns should all get very similar results, but you can see that isn't the case. This is the same issue that the Bals used to have in the Assault Rifles thread, with Obsidian Steed vs Carbon and Virtue vs Marksman, before you fixed it.

I think this is another "16ms vs. 17ms" issue; if you haven't read my response to your Submachine Guns post yet, you should do that now before reading on. The Spacer/Accelerated get their shots in at exactly 5 frames (0.017s * 5 = 0.085s == 0.085s fireTime) but the Swift/Whale Horn both need 6 frames to fire their shots (0.017s * 6 = 0.102s > 0.09s fireTime).

The game only deals with times in integral milliseconds, meaning the true minimum time between frames can only be either 16ms or 17ms. Not knowing exactly which time is correct, I chose the slightly larger time of 17ms, thinking it would better represent reality - how likely is it that 16 ms between frames is preserved for every frame? What this means for the SN6 (and Cycled variant) is that the base weapon (fireTime = 0.075) gets rounded to 0.085s (0.017s * 5 = 0.085s) but the Cycled (fireTime = 0.065s) only gets rounded to 0.068s (0.017s * 4 = 0.068s). With rapid fire, both the base version and the Cycled get a fireTime of 0.068s (0.075s * 0.8 = 0.06s, 0.065s * 0.8 = 0.052s). The Cycled has more recoil because of the ViewKick penalty. That is what accounts for the discrepancies there, I believe. If there was some evidence to suggest that the time between frames is actually capped at 16 ms, I would likely go back and re-do the plots for borderline cases such as these.

I took your quote from the SMG thread too for reference. I didn't know about any of this framerate stuff and how framerates work. All I did was take the ROUNDUP(60*firetime)/60 formula from Mousey's thread. With the SN6 example through, I thought we came to the same result in that the Cycled fires faster than the base gun when neither have rapid fire, but the same as the base gun when they both have rapid fire. In other words, rapid fire doesn't do anything to the Cycled.

I finally just understood what you mean about the 16ms vs 17ms thing. I was under the impression that the Spacer's 0.085 firetime was rounded to 0.1 and the Swift's 0.9 was also rounded to 0.1, using the ROUNDUP(60*firetime)/60 formula. So, is this formula wrong? The Spacer DOES see a firetime increase and I need to adjust my formula somehow? I'm gonna read up about this to try and understand it more. My point about the SN6 still stands though because we came to the same result regarding frame rounding. But in this Ameli example, we had different results that would explain why the Spacer and Accelerated have worse inaccuracy scores.

Also, keep in mind for your spreadsheet that the stance differencees are wrong. I'm only keeping them until the next balance path in the hopes that this is a bug; we have reason to believe based on game code and the fact that snipers do get a stance benefit that there should be a stance benefit to heavy weapons as well.

At the moment my spreadsheet doesn't use the crouching or prone numbers. I haven't even looked at them.

[probaddie]

Feb 26, 2015 0:49:19 GMT -5 Mousey said:

wait what? frames are always in ms? since when? How is it not entirely based on how fast one's computer runs?

hell, that alone doesnt correspond with how the valid FPS caps recognized by the quake engine are 1000/integer

That's exactly why valid framerates are of that form: the integer part of that formula is the time between frames in milliseconds. This is why an exact framerate of 60 fps is not possible (internally), since 60 = 1000 / (1000/60) ~= 1000/16.66.... (VSync will cause the framerate to go to 60 fps, but that's just the artificial delay imposed on displaying the frame on the screen.)

[probaddie]

Feb 26, 2015 9:05:04 GMT -5 Mousey said:

uh right, did math wrong there. But that rule only applies to valid FPS caps, not the time interval between every frame.

Me and mousey slugged it out in the IRC and decided that we don't really know what's going on except that internal physics simulations are almost certainly done using integral time counts in milliseconds, even if the game truly does render each frame as soon as possible (which seems likely). So yeah, that.

[probaddie]

Feb 26, 2015 0:24:16 GMT -5 ninopettis said:

Feb 25, 2015 3:21:58 GMT -5 probaddie said:

I think this is another "16ms vs. 17ms" issue; if you haven't read my response to your Submachine Guns post yet, you should do that now before reading on. The Spacer/Accelerated get their shots in at exactly 5 frames (0.017s * 5 = 0.085s == 0.085s fireTime) but the Swift/Whale Horn both need 6 frames to fire their shots (0.017s * 6 = 0.102s > 0.09s fireTime).

The game only deals with times in integral milliseconds, meaning the true minimum time between frames can only be either 16ms or 17ms. Not knowing exactly which time is correct, I chose the slightly larger time of 17ms, thinking it would better represent reality - how likely is it that 16 ms between frames is preserved for every frame? What this means for the SN6 (and Cycled variant) is that the base weapon (fireTime = 0.075) gets rounded to 0.085s (0.017s * 5 = 0.085s) but the Cycled (fireTime = 0.065s) only gets rounded to 0.068s (0.017s * 4 = 0.068s). With rapid fire, both the base version and the Cycled get a fireTime of 0.068s (0.075s * 0.8 = 0.06s, 0.065s * 0.8 = 0.052s). The Cycled has more recoil because of the ViewKick penalty. That is what accounts for the discrepancies there, I believe. If there was some evidence to suggest that the time between frames is actually capped at 16 ms, I would likely go back and re-do the plots for borderline cases such as these.

I took your quote from the SMG thread too for reference. I didn't know about any of this framerate stuff and how framerates work. All I did was take the ROUNDUP(60*firetime)/60 formula from Mousey's thread. With the SN6 example through, I thought we came to the same result in that the Cycled fires faster than the base gun when neither have rapid fire, but the same as the base gun when they both have rapid fire. In other words, rapid fire doesn't do anything to the Cycled.

I finally just understood what you mean about the 16ms vs 17ms thing. I was under the impression that the Spacer's 0.085 firetime was rounded to 0.1 and the Swift's 0.9 was also rounded to 0.1, using the ROUNDUP(60*firetime)/60 formula. So, is this formula wrong? The Spacer DOES see a firetime increase and I need to adjust my formula somehow? I'm gonna read up about this to try and understand it more. My point about the SN6 still stands though because we came to the same result regarding frame rounding. But in this Ameli example, we had different results that would explain why the Spacer and Accelerated have worse inaccuracy scores.

Also, keep in mind for your spreadsheet that the stance differencees are wrong. I'm only keeping them until the next balance path in the hopes that this is a bug; we have reason to believe based on game code and the fact that snipers do get a stance benefit that there should be a stance benefit to heavy weapons as well.

At the moment my spreadsheet doesn't use the crouching or prone numbers. I haven't even looked at them.

The formula you used assumes a perfect framerate of 60fps, whereas assuming a time between frames of 17 ms gives a framerate of 58.823 fps. To adjust your formula to match my assumption, simply replace 60 with 58.823 wherever you see it.

Yeah, just hold off on including anything related to stance for Heavy Weapons: they actually do not receive any recoil reduction when changing stance.

[Megaqwerty]

I would expect the recoil reduction bonus to be fixed when the IMR stats are fixed.

So, never.

[probaddie]

Ohm

[Ironforce92]

Ohm rapid fire?

[probaddie]

Mar 4, 2015 16:59:48 GMT -5 Ironforce92 said:

Ohm rapid fire?

Oh, if you insist....

[Ironforce92]

Thanks!

[probaddie]

Ohm (Shotgun Mode)

[ninopettis]

I just noticed that the Ameli Redshirt has +10% viewkick change, but it was left off in Will Wheatley's spreadsheet and here. It shouldn't be grouped with the Chicanery. It should be on its own, but its results should look similar to those of the Swift at the Accelerated, due to frame rounding with a frame length of 0.017 seconds.

Edit: Just noticed the same for the Pytaek Savvy. Will need its own plot but should have similar results to the Exploit because of frame rounding.

[probaddie]

Mar 15, 2015 6:57:40 GMT -5 ninopettis said:

I just noticed that the Ameli Redshirt has +10% viewkick change, but it was left off in Will Wheatley's spreadsheet and here. It shouldn't be grouped with the Chicanery. It should be on its own, but its results should look similar to those of the Swift at the Accelerated, due to frame rounding with a frame length of 0.017 seconds.

Edit: Just noticed the same for the Pytaek Savvy. Will need its own plot but should have similar results to the Exploit because of frame rounding.

Fixed and fixed.

[Megaqwerty]

Ohm variant stats are up and their plots would be most appreciated. Thank you, probaddie! You are a wolf among pups.

[probaddie]

Pytaek (Post-Rapid Fire Nerf)

[probaddie]

XMG (Post-Rapid Fire Nerf)

[probaddie]

Ameli

[probaddie]

Ohm (Post-Rapid Fire Nerf)

[Megaqwerty]

I'm curious as to the difference between the Heart Seeker and the Restless: on paper, their recoil stats are almost identical yet they have such different patterns and accuracy. Recoil works in mysterious ways.

[probaddie]

Apr 25, 2015 17:17:09 GMT -5 Megaqwerty said:

I'm curious as to the difference between the Heart Seeker and the Restless: on paper, their recoil stats are almost identical yet they have such different patterns and accuracy. Recoil works in mysterious ways.

I was told by Marvel4 that there are some discrepancies in Will's charts. Thus, he directly sent me a list of which entries in his spreadsheet belong to which Ohm variant. That may account for the difference.