Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3118 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: Some Penal Idea6 Apr 2021, 09:59 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 08:42 AMVipper Penal are more than fine. The problem remain T1 and not Penal. Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 09:55 AMVipper Not really I have always said that badly designed. They are not however UP in any way thus they are "fine". (I am use the term fine because I would rather avoid yet another debated about Penal power level). They are actually cheaper and arrive earlier than Fuss while about the same power level from vet 1-3. Penals and T1 are not separable at this point anymore. Unless your suggestion is to move the ATG to the HQ and unlock it with both T1 and T2, Penals need to fill in for a lot of roles that Axis get basically by default. Also, late game Penals caused higher bleed than other main lines (basically other units in general), that's why the current patch addressed this with reducing reinforcement costs in the late game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Should CQC troops have Hold Fire option?6 Apr 2021, 09:54 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 07:55 AMSweetrollNearTheDoor snip Technically I think there is nothing to lose with that (other than potentially bugs). It would increase the skill curve a bit, but overall probably not by much. Then there is also the question why not give it to every squad. PGrens? Good short range fighters too. PGrens with G43? They're not short range but why should I not optimize if I wanted to? I've had it more than once that I ran into the enemies retreat path just to find my squad reloading when the enemy was passing right through them. Maybe I'd rather start shooting later to get more close range shots. But then again you can't fully control what happens. Your suggestion works with a "fresh" squad that just reloaded, but you can't control this. In a second engagement, your squad might start with 1 burst left, reload while closing in and start blasting in melee, so basically perfectly what you want. The only solution is to add a reload button as well, but I don't think that is really necessary. Does anyone know if retreating resets the reload? Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 08:34 AMKatitof Why else a unit with no ambush capability, no AT capability and range much shorter then sight would need it? Just read the OP I guess? And how is 35 sight much shorter than 35 weapon range? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS6 Apr 2021, 09:34 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 09:26 AMMMX just to chime in quickly because you mentioned burst duratiin. from what i know this is always at least 1 frame, even if can_burst is 0), as is aim time. hence even if you set all delays to 0 (for a ballistic weapon at least) the maximum number of shots per second is 4, or one every 2 frames Yes, that's one way to explain it. In hindsight it maybe is the more elegant one. I started testing single fire weapons first and since the editor says they don't use burst at all, I neglected all burst stats. After that, the easiest explanation was to add 0.125 somewhere, which I then added to the fire_aim time. I will think about this later and maybe change the formulas/descriptions. Did you make some tests after the 64 bit update? I still find it odd that a game that is based on tick rate doesn't care about it for many of its stats and I somehow suspect the update to have changed something. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS6 Apr 2021, 09:17 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 08:36 AMKlement Pikhtura Ok, so if I understood you right fire_aim_time, wind_up, wind_down should be divisible by 0.125, or it's ried to in-game time, e.g. if fire_aim_tim finished in .387 fraction of a second it will be prolonged to 0.5 in real time? Also cooldown and burst duration can be anything and are not affected by the tickrate? wind_up and wind_down get rounded up to the next 0.125 step OR 0.125 added if they are already a multiple. Fire_aim time seems to be different for single and burst fire weapons. For single fire, you add 0.125 seconds and take that regardless if it is a multiple of 0.125 or not. Burst weapons do not add anything and just take the random value. As an example: wind_up is 0 seconds -> 0 wind_up is 1 second -> 1.125 wind_up is 1.1 seconds -> 1.125 single fire weapon: fire_aim is 0 seconds -> not tested, according to the attribute editor it can't be smaller than 0.125 iirc fire_aim is 1 second -> 1.125 fire_aim is 1.1 seconds -> 1.225 burst fire weapon: fire_aim is 0 seconds -> not tested, according to the attribute editor it can't be smaller than 0.125 iirc fire_aim is 1 second -> 1 fire_aim is 1.1 seconds -> 1.1 There is a second way to describe this that on one hand streamlines the logic, on the other hand introduces new logic errors. But it yields the same result. If you export the weapon_report table from the attribute editor, single fire weapons have a burst duration of 0.125. In the case of single fire weapons, you could use the same formula as burst fire (that is, do not ad 0.125 seconds to fire_aim but add the 0.125 of the burst duration. This gives you the same result). On the other hand the attribute editor says that single fire weapons do not burst and therefore do not use any burst stats (CanBurst is set to 0). So congrats to whoever at Relic wrote this, it is outdated and potentially has always been wrong. Or it has been right and the game treats fire_aim times of different weapon types differently. What exactly happens in the end does not really matter. What matters is that the formula models what we see. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS6 Apr 2021, 07:31 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 01:42 AMMMX awesome work man! from the limited testing i've done in the past to match my own dps calculations with the in-game behavior i know this is a very tough nut to crack. kudos for taking the time and figuring out the details, this will surely be of immense help to achieve proper unit balance (and hopefully also balance discussions). i've got a question with respect to the formula; how does your code handle situations where delays (i.e. aim time × distance multi) would get below the 1 frame limit (which seems to occur frequently in serealia's data)? from what i've tested so far these delays have a minimum of 0.125 s and increase by multiples thereof, which i guess is what the apply add_125 function does? Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 06:33 AMKlement Pikhtura Sorry for stupid question, but does all this mean that in order to calculate the correct dps you need to add 0.125 sec to every delay stat during shooting, except reload time, if it is bigger then 0? e.g. fire_aim_time + wind_up + wind_down + cooldown +0.125*4 Jump back to quoted post6 Apr 2021, 06:35 AMVipper The game uses ticks of 0.125 time. For the game the only times that exist are 0.125, 0.25, 0.375, 0.5 I'll sum these up slightly since they target similar issues: MMX: I have not tested what happens below 0.125 seconds, simply because I did not think about it. For my testing I made Gren K98, Conscript mosin and Penal SVT (and both Axis HMGs respectively for burst weapons) carbon copies and then slightly altered stats to see what is happening. Once I had the model I compared the formula with some weapons as in the game and it seemed to fit (considering I cannot fully control distance within the tests). But you are right, maybe one more test is needed in that regard. Kliement & Vipper: The tank gun tests I did back then showed exactly this behaviour: Always round up to the next 0.125 step, but add at least 0.125. But either small arms behave differently, or the 64 bit update changed something. The stats for small arms all work differently. Some show the rounding behaviour, some show a simple 'just add 0.125', others stay as they are. Even if they are not a multiple of 0.125. A 1.3 second delay is possible for cooldown, on the other hand a 1.3 windup will always become 1.375. I have no idea why. I noted down how every single stat behaves in the stat overview spoiler. At least this is what my tests got me. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS5 Apr 2021, 21:14 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Apr 2021, 21:09 PMZeroZeroNi I have 1 more question: What to do when burst length x rof is not a whole number. A weapon can't fire say 17.5 rounds in a burst right??? As I wrote in the text, I am not sure what exactly happens in the game. But I have seen the weapon apply two different amounts of damage in successive bursts when I forced this situation. I am not sure if this fraction carries over to the next cycle or if there is a random pick. My best approximation is to just go with the fractional bullet and therefore fractional damage. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS5 Apr 2021, 20:48 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Apr 2021, 19:56 PMZeroZeroNi Readability is fine, But here is an optimization, def correct_time(val): if val>0: return math.ceil(val8)0.125 else: return 0 well yes I could have used the ceil function. However you shortened your version a bit too much because multiples of 0.125 get 0.125 added as well (for example, inputs of 0.125 and 0.2 must both generate 0.25 as output). I am happy if you have tips, however I'd rather move those to PM since code discussions are probably not very interesting for the other users. Unless you spot a real error of course, then just post the fix or a fixed file here. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS5 Apr 2021, 19:52 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Apr 2021, 19:43 PMZeroZeroNi Don't take this the wrong way but as a software dev some of the code just looks so inelegant. No worries. I assume it is for a professional, but I then again for someone that taught himself programming in the evening with no real need for readable coding in the job that is excusable. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS5 Apr 2021, 19:22 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Apr 2021, 19:09 PMZeroZeroNi I have a python script that uses the old formula. If you tell what the adjustment that need to be made I can modify a line or two of that code in the mean time to check. https://www.coh2.org/file/19587/coh2-inf-dps-v0-5.zip Well then I'll just hand out the pre-version right away. This is a zip file containing the weapon_report as exported from the attribute editor (thanks to MMX for providing this since my table program fucks it up) and an ipynb file with the necessary code (I used jupyter notebook for that). Needs pandas, numpy and plotly.express libraries installed (most recent version, older ones should work too). You can also use seaborn instead, just change the last cell accordingly. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A corrected model for infantry DPS5 Apr 2021, 19:04 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Apr 2021, 18:57 PMVipper nice work. Yes the game use 1.25 tick and timers use that tick. Thank you very much. I knew that, this is also what I suspected back in the tank gun tests and then termed "correction time". I thought the game needs to "wait" until the next tick when the previous part of the firing processed finished. Things here are more complicated though. Some stats still use this correction time, others add a plain 0,125 seconds (so you can go from 0,4 to 0,525) and there will be no correction time at all. And in a third case nothing is applied. I don't know if the 64 bit update changed something, one would need to test tank guns again. But in the end it does not really matter that much. In the case of fire_aim time, this also differs between burst and single fire. Maybe my model that's not exactly what happens, but at least it is one way to describe the outcome. In: COH2 Gameplay