Infantry weapon comparison tool

So, I made a modeling tool to compare infantry weapon damage and DPS, available at http://ps2model-axiom.rhcloud.com/. It's essentially a visualization of the data from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLWc. I'm interested in hearing feedback on what could make it more useful... especially if you can point me toward data that has been updated more recently than December.

Very cool and great job.

Interestingly, there is no NC LMG that compares to the Carv9 or Orion in terms of DPS. The closest you can get is basically the SAW but you are still doing over 100 damage less per second (this means you are generating less flinch as well even post fix) at the best and up to almost 200 damage less per second at range.

In fact, after playing around a little while it looks like NC dps < TR dps across the board if you compare within the most similar models (i.e. Guass S with T1S, mag shot with repeater, etc. In fact, both NC and VS pistols do about 500 less dps than TR repeater. The only case where this appears not to hold is with the GD-7F outlier.

Thanks, at least now I can feel a little better when I get killed by TR knowing that they tend to have the highest DPS.

Awesome tool sir!

This really shows how weak VS LMG:s are at range.

Wahh? You realize VS have a damage advantage leading up to 65m and 75m, which is where the rest of the LMGs hit their min damage range. Their slope from 0m-to-65m and further is much more gradual. Are you constantly shooting folks 246 feet out? Honestly think of 246 feet.

That's not really true. VS LMGs generally go down a second damage tier at range, unlike the TR/NC LMGs (all of whose min damage is one tier below their max damage, mostly 167 to 143 or 143 to 125). This makes VS LMGs inferior in terms of damage at long ranges (65-70m and longer), but they don't suffer bullet drop so it's pretty clearly an attempt to balance that aspect.

See e.g. http//ps2model-axiom.rhcloud.com/#dmg/la/1/22/7278/7256/7254/23/7236

Great stuff!

I've got a Google spreadsheet worked out that does this too, but also includes expected damage on target due to COF and COF bloom. Adjusted for range of course. Basically a per-shot simulation programmed out in a spreadsheet ;-) It also has TTK graphs based on the expected damage on target. I could share it with you if you would like some inspiration maybe to include accuracy into your graphs.

I can't wait this to be misused in the forum discussions by showing nothing but the theoretical data when in reality they play completely differently than any graph can show.

Are you a user of homeopathic "drugs" also?

Sure shows how woefully inadequate NC guns can be not because of damage, but because of extremely low ROF. I think most NC guns need a small ROF boost to bring them in line with the DPS numbers of the other factions.

Yes, I'd definitely be interested in seeing that.

No, but unlike many of the forum warriors, probably you included, I don't blindly trust statistics. Statistics are a tool that you can use to compare results to. Statistics are not the definitive attributes of anything. Theoretical statistics only give you an idea what something might look like when you draw a graph about it for example. It doesn't tell you the reality of how things really work. Results that deviate enough from the statistics can be further studied to either be error in measurement or new trait of the object in question that occurs at certain frequency.

I trust I don't have to go on further about explaining you the differences between statistics and reality.

First off, good job on this tool, it's really easy to use! I do have some recommendations for you though:

• Damage per second is very missleading as it falsely makes it seem like most NC weapons are underpowered. You should add a graph for time to kill: (BulletsToKill -1) * RefireTime. (-1 is key since you don't have to refire after last bullet)
• It would be really cool if there was a graph that would plot the recoil pattern of the weapon with numbered circles. Of course this would need to take into account vertical recoil, vertical recoil angle, first shot recoil multiplier, horizontal recoil and horizontal recoil tolerance. On top of that, add option to take into account attachments.

What this shows to me is that there's no point in not getting softpoint ammo unless you're using a long range weapon and then, you should be getting high velocity regardless of the recoil and bullet drop effects.

You're cool.

I'd love if it we could get some reliable min damage numbers for bolt actions, then I could figure out the furthest range I could get OHKs at

This is great, OP. Please keep it up to date. You have my eternal thanks!

I honestly don't understand why people overplay the already-minor differences in the guns of each faction (you're forcing devs to make every gun across all factions "vanilla," if that's your definition of fun in a three-faction game. Might as well ask the devs to make every single gun type exactly the same—and they actually have done so to some extent. Look at each faction's purchasable guns and you'll find things like the TMG-50 being very close to the EM-6).
If the guns' advantages and disadvantages really proved to be so detrimental or overwhelming, you'd see a huge shift of certain weapons being used, or one faction being dominated or completely dominating another. That is never the case, and you'll more often than not find that situational awareness, numbers, skill, etc. generally out-trump these differences by a huge factor anyway. Even so, minor differences between the guns is literally one or two bullets' difference in actual gameplay, and no one is perfect to be able to take full advantage of this. It all mostly comes down to aim, feel, and personal preference, and many skilled players can use all three factions' weapons very effectively despite their "game-breaking" differences. It seems like very few people understand this.
Stop discouraging devs from bringing out PS2's full potential as a three-faction MMOFPS.


Nice work Axiom80, but people are using your work to bring up needless complaints instead of playing the game in the different factions to actually see how the guns work.

Maybe Vanu will finally realize the whole damage degradation nonsense is actually an advantage in the ranges where the absolute vast majority of firefights take place.

But you didn't see what I meant though. When NC & TR hit their min damage range at 65m or 75m, it's going to be 143 damage from 65m to whatever meters out, that is true. The VS, as you said, continue to have damage drop off further. But what i mentioned and want to make clear is that VS weapons will be doing overall more damage from 10m going to 65m because I believe the damage drop off is more gradual. A TR weapon and a VS weapon both starting at 167 damage, I believe at 40m, that VS weapon will be doing a bit higher damage than the TR one because the TR min damage is coming up sooner.

edit: See I prove it here. Just focus on the damage of 1 bullet. At 40m the VS weapon is doing more damage than the TR weapon even if they both start at 143 damage. The slope from max-to-min is much more gradual for VS. VS weapons have a bullet damage EDGE against NC and TR weapons at 65 meters (213 feet) and below. I'd say that's a really great edge. When people write meters, it gives an impression it's not that far, but really picture 213 feet and at what distance most of us kill each other at.

At 65m its 125dmg vs 126.8dmg, so while its true that the VS Weapon have better damage under ~71.5m the difference is small. Its 8 bullets to kill vs 7.88 bullets to kill, and because you cant shoot 0.88 bullets you will still need 8 to kill your target. What that means is that even thought it looks better in the graph it doesnt give us any advantage BUT if we go over 71.5m it takes us 9 bullets to kill. Also note that from 0-10m its 7 bullets (6.99 bullets) to kill, the moment you go to 10m+ its 8 bullets.

Carv

0-10m: 7 bullets
10m+: 8 bullets

vs.

Orion

0-10m: 7 bullets
10-71.5m: 8 bullets
71.5m+: 9 bullets