probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 13:22:44 GMT -5
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
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 10:00:56 GMT -5
Is that simulating view bobbing? Yes, but incorrectly. I'm working out how my code is now managing to screw it up.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 10:00:17 GMT -5
There was a glitch with that where you could retain prone bonus while standing.. is that related/still around? Yes, it is.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 6:45:13 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the prone bonus doesn't work on PC for whatever reason. Use "Change Stance" instead of "Crouch" and "Prone". It's a bug that's been around since MW3.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 5:44:36 GMT -5
Thanks for going through all of this with me, I appreciate it. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) No worries. Forgive me for not re-quoting your previous post; things were just starting to get messy. 1. I see the problem with those two variants is still there. I guess I forgot to hit "Save Changes"? I'll fix that soon, I promise ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) . 2. I finally see what you're saying. You're right that there isn't enough of a difference between the SN6 Base and the Cycled. I double-checked the numbers in my spreadsheet and they appeared to be right - almost. What went wrong is that I inadvertently switched the fireTimes in my spreadsheet so that the "true" fireTime was used first for the first three shots and then the "intro" fireTime after that, where it should have been the other way around. Thus, the SN6 in all cases was simulated with a fireTime of 0.068s between shots after the first 3 shots. (Rapid Fire does not affect the "intro" fireTime.) For reference, here is how the SN6 Base/Cycled look after fixing the bug (with 10,000 trials each): ![](http://i.imgur.com/XxIHrvS.png) ![](http://i.imgur.com/wfwuNly.png) I think there should be no problems here, but let me know what you think. After I talk to Marvel4 sometime today, I'll update the plots with variable firerates. 3. Regarding the burst weapons: it turns out that the expiration of fireTime is also frame-bound - I just learned this myself recently. So in those examples I gave for the AMR9, there would likely be yet an extra frame between volleys. (And yeah, I'll update the burst-fire plots, too.) I hope you don't feel guilty about hounding me like this: you shouldn't. I never have a problem with people correcting me so long as they're civil and reasonable about it, and you've been both throughout.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 26, 2015 4:30:19 GMT -5
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
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 18:49:19 GMT -5
Tac-19 - Sledgehammer (Hipfire)![](http://i.imgur.com/k92sHpH.png)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 15:34:38 GMT -5
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 11:16:43 GMT -5
Is there anything else that differentiates them from lmgs? Maybe they intended to not include the prone bonus but wanted to make it easy to implement if need be. Not that I know of. It's also possible they reclassified them as heavy weapons because the EM1 and EPM3 can't rightly be called "machine" guns (in the usual sense of the word) but overlooked this consequence. My money is on that theory.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 11:06:06 GMT -5
I feel like he was only referring to the prone bonus. Yeah, I forgot to put the word "stance" in there. Crouching and proning do not give a recoil reduction to heavy weapons.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 9:22:42 GMT -5
Drift0r said 5 points of damage makes a noticeable difference in flinch, is that true? "Noticeable" is subjective, so I guess he meant noticeable in the normative sense, as in most relevant people would notice it in a side by side comparison. That being said, isn't the flinch formula a function of damage from the previous CoDs? I do wonder if it's the same in AW. If it is the same, a difference of 5 damage would result in a one degree difference in deflection (5 * 0.2 = 1). Edit: I suck at math.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 3:21:58 GMT -5
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). 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.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 25, 2015 3:05:23 GMT -5
Okay, don't hate me for the work I might be creating for you here... The KF5 and MP11 sections are a bit messed up. There's some variants in the wrong sections. The KF5 Single Stack and the MP11 Scout are both missing, and the MP11 Devourer foregrip/rapidfire combo is missing. Fixed. Also fixed: there was no multiplier to the ViewKick scale to account for the Grip. In combination with the included Rapid Fire it now gets only +3.5% ViewKick (1.15 * 0.9 = 1.035). The SN6 is a funny case. At exactly 60 fps (0.016666...s between frames) you're right that all versions of the SN6 have their fireTime rounded up to 0.08s. 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 understand your point about the SN6 - K. I'm a bit reluctant to go ahead with the suggestion, though, just because it requires a bit of mental gymnastics for the viewer to figure out where the K plot is located. The calculus would have to be, "okay, so the K is the same as the base version (but with a foregrip), so I actually have to go to the base plots and look at just the ones with the grip and convince myself I'm looking at the K." With the AMR9 Banger, its already understood that it has an accuracy profile identical to the base version but with one less attachment option. Ultimately, I think I prefer just keeping variants with technically deviant accuracy profiles separate; there's no need to sacrifice clarity just to be clever about the organization of the plots. It turns out - I will completely admit that this is due to pure luck - that the difference does matter at 17 ms between frames! The actual time required between the end of the last burst and the start of the next one for burst fire weapons is fireTime + burstFireCooldown. The Hipshot requires 0.155s between the last burst and the next, and the Dynamo requires only 0.145s. So with 17 ms between frames, the Hipshot can discharge the next volley after 9 frames (9 * 0.17s = 0.153s) but the Dynamo will require 10 frames (10 * 0.017s = 0.170s). Again, this is a complete coincidence, and at 16 ms between frames you'd be entirely correct about the burst delay not making a difference. (Both would need 10 frames between volleys, since 9 * 0.016 = 0.144s and 10 * 0.016 = 0.160s.) I hope this answers your concerns. Edit: Marvel4 pointed out that, at a perfect 60fps, the SN6 variants with faster fire rate actually would fire faster (0.0166...s * 3 = 0.0666...s > 0.065s).
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 18:42:38 GMT -5
So apparently Heavy Weapons do not receive any recoil reduction in Advanced Warfare, despite the existence of a script in the game (from Modern Warfare 3) that confers a benefit to LMGs. The reason for this is because the game differentiates Heavy Weapons (weapon_heavy) from LMGs (weapon_lmg). I have tweeted Michael Condrey about this in the hopes that it is a bug; meanwhile, the plots showing stance differences will remain until the upcoming patch. If no change is made then, I will re-upload (sigh) the Heavy Weapon plots.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 15:59:41 GMT -5
Heavy Weapon and Sniper Rifle plots have been updated with plots for crouching and prone positions.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 11:18:07 GMT -5
you need a pretty high fire rate for shots to fire before the peak though Yeah probably in the thousands.. but the smoothness improves constantly, so even with more recoil, a gun could be preferable. Example: bo1 m14 - no way to compensate for recoil until high firerate Also what changed probaddie? I see new plots I just posted those to illustrate the expected error in the inaccuracy scores when simulating 10000 trials per weapon. (I assume you're referring to the tetrad of Bal-27 plots?)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 10:15:12 GMT -5
Ok, I can accept that it's just a coincidence. I know it was only minor, but it happened in all three cases where there's frame rounding with the ARs. It even happens (albeit a very small amount) in the example above. I dunno if it'll happen with the SMGs and LMGs but I plan to look at them too to put them in my spreadsheet so we'll see. I didn't mean to say "gosh darn golly gee whization" above. One of the two elite ARX-160 variants is missing, and it isn't the Steel Bite. I just fixed it. Thanks for your help. All the confusion stemming from the inaccuracy scores might tempt me to do a spreadsheet of them where I simulate a higher number of trials to churn out more accurate numbers. I'll let you know if that idea comes to fruition (i.e., I can will myself to code something that will do the spreadsheet compilation for me.)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 7:15:13 GMT -5
The reason I'm going through the numbers is because I'm putting together a spreadsheet that calculates HTK and TTK, as well as displaying other weapon stats, also using weapon accuracy, accuracy by range, and attachment modifiers. Thanks for updating the plots. I've gone through them again and they look better than before. The only real issue is that the ARX gosh darn golly gee whization is missing. Another thing, and this may be insignificant and/or a coincidence, is that for all the weapons that don't see their coded firetime increase/decrease at 60fps due to frame rounding, they're helped or hurt more by the foregrip than the weapon that doesn't have a firetime change. For example, the Obsidian Steed is slightly more accurate than the 308 and the Carbon without a foregrip due to its lower firerate when there are dropped frames, and this is how I'd have expected it to be. However, it's less accurate than the 308 and the Carbon when it gets a foregrip. You can see the same thing with the AK12 Fluted vs Hair Trigger, and the ARX Tactical vs Superlite. The differences are only small, but they're there in all three instances, so I thought there could be an error. This is the first FPS I've played and I haven't even used a semi-auto weapon yet for any period of time so I didn't really know about how fast a person can fire. I just watched drift0r's EPM3 video and he said most players fire at 400-500 RPM, with better players firing at 600-700. I also learned through a Google search that in previous COD games, some semi-auto weapons had a firecap of 625 RPM and the gun would jam if it went over this. I didn't know this and thought 625 was more an arbitrary number you chose. I think you did the right thing not going over 625. While some players are capable of firing faster than that, it doesn't mean that they're going to fire as fast as that all of the time or just on average. For example, a player might be capable of firing 900 RPM but his average RPM would be much lower, and average RPM is more important for the spreadsheet I'm putting together. I suspect that it probably is just a coincidence. Realize that the difference between these inaccuracy scores is on the order of hundredths of a degree. For reference, I plotted the Bal-27 variants you mentioned using 100,000 simulations: ![](http://i.imgur.com/W3FpNlJ.png) The error now seems to be on the order of thousandths of a degree. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have reported six decimal digits of accuracy in the scores ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) .
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 24, 2015 5:52:26 GMT -5
where's the mp11 squeaker? At your mom's house. Kidding, it's fixed. Thanks again.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 15:18:08 GMT -5
I just finished re-uploading plots due to an error in my plotting code that affected fireTimes. All plots that were affected have been revised.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 15:03:04 GMT -5
Only for Cheaty McCheatersons users with modded controllers. What is a mouse. There's no way you and your hooves can put out 1200 RPM with a mouse.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 14:15:47 GMT -5
would a plot of the EPM3 fired at 1200 RPM make sense? Yes. Only for Cheaty McCheatersons users with modded controllers.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 11:36:37 GMT -5
They are clearly aware that fire rates are limited by frame rate or else they would have been awestruck that the EM1 doesnt actually have infinite fire rate. There virtually no chance that they would have selected a firetime of zero otherwise. Daily reminder that SH IW tried to reduce the FMG9X2's RoF by lowering the fire time. They are that dum. FTFY
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 11:21:55 GMT -5
At 15% hip accuracy bonus would be too op with the S-12's 22 GH spread. A hipspread of 22 seems a little too generous to me. I expect that's going to get nerfed in the next weapon balance patch.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 6:05:48 GMT -5
Hey probaddie, thanks again for this. I spoke to you in your post on the subreddit. I went through these and put the numbers in an Excel file. I dunno if you have those already... I probably should have asked. If you do could you post them please? Anyway, I noticed a few weird things going through the weapons... Why is the Bal-27 Assaulter any different to the base Bal and the Tactical? Range, ADS time, Reserve mags, and Hipspread are the only differences between the weapons. Just another one of many oversights. When I compiled the data, I started with a copy of Marvel4's spreadsheet - which had every variant listed - and cropped the list as I found identical weapons. So, 90% of the mistakes I made left orphan variants in the sheet that should have been merged with another (or the base version). I accidentally gave it the wrong introFireTime (0.11s instead of 0.09s). More on how I'll fix this below. This is the biggie. Until this game, I simulated ViewKick in a way that was frame-independent. I did this because framerate is capped at 91 fps on PC (since MW2) and at 1000 fps (the Quake 3 engine's cap) prior to that. This method meant that the worst-case scenario was always represented (most recoil), regardless of platform. Because of the way (we presume) the game internally handles heat accumulation for the AE4, EPM3 and EM1, I had to abandon that approach for this game; tests showed that the game was clearly using frame-dependent arithmetic to determine the amount of heat accumulated per shot for these weapons. I wrote new code that took a given time between frames (17ms) and bumped up the coded fireTime to match the nearest multiple of that time. In light of your observation, I did a test run with the Bal variants and double-checked that the fireTime was being rounded correctly: it was. I also checked the plots and, in this run, the two Bal variants you mention do have the same recoil. This leads me to believe that my initial run was bugged. My only explanation for this is that I inadvertently fixed the issue after the initial run of plots. I had been meaning to clear out some cobwebs in my code - making thins clearer and adding comments - for a while, and did so after my run of plots. This must have fixed the bug, though I can't tell myself what exactly the bug was or how I remedied the problem. For these reason, I'm going to re-upload the entire set after fixing the errata in my spreadsheet. Yes, strictly speaking, weapons with longer burst delays have a lower average RPM. However, the burst delay on the ARX-160 is so long and its recoil so negligible that the difference in burst delay is immaterial: the ARX always recovers its ViewKick and GunKick before the next volley of shots is fired. To take this to an extreme, if you waited a full three seconds before firing each burst from the ARX, you technically are firing the gun at a lower average RPM than if you fired them off, say, every two seconds. But you wouldn't expect your accuracy to be any better in either of these two cases. The difference in inaccuracy score between those plots is likely insignificant; even over 1000 simulations, its always possible for two identical (or very similar) weapons to achieve slightly different inaccuracy scores, even ones that belie the true accuracy difference (i.e., giving the slightly lower inaccuracy score to the gun that is technically more inaccurate). That, or the fireTime bug caused the slight deviation. I know some people can fire past 625 RPM, naturally or through a modded controller. However, there does need to be a cut-off point - would a plot of the EPM3 fired at 1200 RPM make sense? Granted, a lot of people use the Desecrator specifically because they can abuse the higher firecap. I think for the re-upload I will separate the Desecrator and fire it at the highest possible firerate. Thank you for observations. I'd like to be vigilant enough to spot some of these problems myself, but the sheer tedium of uploading these all by hand often saps my will to do any meaningful fact-checking. It is a blessing that there are people out there passionate enough to notice and care about these things.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 22, 2015 9:35:57 GMT -5
I predict that the next weapon balance pass will satisfy exactly zero people. 'Cap it, folks.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 21, 2015 7:16:33 GMT -5
MORS (Ballistic CPU)![](http://i.imgur.com/fVTDUoI.png)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 21, 2015 7:10:55 GMT -5
MORS (Thermal; 2-shot trials)![](http://i.imgur.com/rESNovw.png)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 21, 2015 4:50:05 GMT -5
Thanks for doing this Probaddie, you da DOG! Your plots make it really easy to see why BAL and ASM are fan favorites, the easily accommodating vertical recoil and high fire rates work very well with the movement and pace of the game. Has there ever been a buff or nerf where the recoil pattern itself has changed in COD, or just the magnitude of the pattern? For example the FNG9 nerf from MW3 where they were given recoil. I'm asking because without a recoil pattern change I think the ASM and BAL will continue to be top tier through the next balance pass simply because increasing the vertical recoil alone on them will only cause players to counter by aiming down more. The guns that have non uniform recoil patterns will still be more difficult to aim with despite the damage increases they may get. And by the way your SN6 plots sadden me greatly....sigh SHG. First, I can't really comment on the FMG9 nerf you're referring to. The only one we have any direct knowledge about is the one where the Akimbo version had its fireTime increased (eventually). Second, strictly speaking, every recoil change has changed the recoil profile of the weapon in question, at least in some slight way. This is because you have to doctor the numbers in a very specific manner to get the "pattern" to scale linearly. Doing anything else will technically alter the recoil in a way that does not preserve the original pattern, though in a slight way. So to answer your question: I can't come up with an example where just the magnitude was increased/decreased and the overall pattern conserved.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 20, 2015 10:35:32 GMT -5
Rapid Fire should add flame decals to the gun. Literally game-breaking. No, seriously, your game wouldn't even start-up if something this powerful existed.
|
|