🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #141
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    &#×%$& ing garbage mobile version of the forums ate my painstakingly written reply. God I hate mobile.

    Anyway. Reply 2.0


    So I found the vid. Apparently my adblocker browser wasn't letting the embedded vid display. My first impression is that it all seems legit, within the constraints of the shooting range.

    Correct me if I get anything wrong here:
    • W&H 2pc had a high hit of 543k at 5 stacks of strained.
    • Fox's had a high of 555k also at 5 sacks of strained.
    • Sawyers at full stacks had over 600k high.



    What I noticed was that the invulnerable target did not have armor to let the 2pc W&H take advantage of it's brand bonus. Meaning it likely would have performed better against an armored target.

    Also, do we know if the shooting range targets count as out of cover?

    Anyway, as far as I can tell it seems to me that in terms of potential damage, Sawyers is the clear winner here. However, due to RNG and the rate of crit, I think that the point about long-term absolute damage output needing a much larger sample size to correctly compare is valid as well.

    Sawyers won't have as much crit as either of the other two, and in the field you won't always be able to maintain full stacks. Then again, W&H won't always be against armored targets, and Fox's wont always hit targets OOC.

    So I wonder all of this will wash out over the long term.

    I'll try to get some good footage of various tests myself. I don't have the exact same gear as you, but I should be able to come close.
    Share this post

  2. #142
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    &#×%$& ing garbage mobile version of the forums ate my painstakingly written reply. God I hate mobile.

    Anyway. Reply 2.0


    So I found the vid. Apparently my adblocker browser wasn't letting the embedded vid display. My first impression is that it all seems legit, within the constraints of the shooting range.

    Correct me if I get anything wrong here:
    • W&H 2pc had a high hit of 543k at 5 stacks of strained.
    • Fox's had a high of 555k also at 5 sacks of strained.
    • Sawyers at full stacks had over 600k high.



    What I noticed was that the invulnerable target did not have armor to let the 2pc W&H take advantage of it's brand bonus. Meaning it likely would have performed better against an armored target.

    Also, do we know if the shooting range targets count as out of cover?

    Anyway, as far as I can tell it seems to me that in terms of potential damage, Sawyers is the clear winner here. However, due to RNG and the rate of crit, I think that the point about long-term absolute damage output needing a much larger sample size to correctly compare is valid as well.

    Sawyers won't have as much crit as either of the other two, and in the field you won't always be able to maintain full stacks. Then again, W&H won't always be against armored targets, and Fox's wont always hit targets OOC.

    So I wonder all of this will wash out over the long term.

    I'll try to get some good footage of various tests myself. I don't have the exact same gear as you, but I should be able to come close.
    I'd considered that too, so I ran the next three tests using an invulnerable elite which is armoured. Same outcome though in that in the build shown in the video(which I think ought to be perfectly clear to a vet) Fox's performs the worst. Sawyer's were way out in front but I don't use them because I play that guy run and gun. I have Sawyer's in my M1A build though as I personally think they make more sense in that build and they certainly get more damage -- not always a goal I'm aiming for.

    We know the range is unreliable and has hit detection issues, we know that this also occurs in-game and we know of many many bugs that affect damage etc etc. That's why I only let the math speak to a degree rather than letting it be final.
    Share this post

  3. #143
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    I'd considered that too, so I ran the next three tests using an invulnerable elite which is armoured. Same outcome though in that in the build shown in the video(which I think ought to be perfectly clear to a vet) Fox's performs the worst. Sawyer's were way out in front but I don't use them because I play that guy run and gun. I have Sawyer's in my M1A build though as I personally think they make more sense in that build and they certainly get more damage -- not always a goal I'm aiming for.

    We know the range is unreliable and has hit detection issues, we know that this also occurs in-game and we know of many many bugs that affect damage etc etc. That's why I only let the math speak to a degree rather than letting it be final.
    Wouldn't using Fox's have better results against Chungas and Dogs? Or did we determine that those actually don't count as OOC?


    Really though, I think my initial instincts of it coming down to personal playstyle were correct, as long as the rest of the build is optimized.
    Share this post

  4. #144
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Your (somewhat contorted) grammar here says that you do not doubt that everything it says is 100% correct, once you take out the double negatives. I assume from your previous comments you mean the opposite.

    But you avoided answering my question. For the things in the caculations I provided, what do you believe to be incorrect? Feel free to use my post just above, where I do some more explicit calculations, to identify things.



    Well, it appears that you don't. But we know from plenty of examples in these forums that, especially in the heat of battle, players often misunderstand what was going on. So at the moment we've got no evidence that the game wasn't working as described and that you didn't misinterpret something. If you want to show that it's not likely you're misinterpreting things you need to find a case that can be replicated or show a video that can be analyzed in detail. (I've found plenty of times that going through a video at slow speed shows that I was misinterpreting what I saw, or thought I saw, rather than there being any problem with the game. Not that the game doesn't have its problems of course, but I've found it mostly works as designed, once you figure out what the design is.)



    That just makes no sense at all. "I was using Blinder Firefly" ("95% of the time," whatever that means) does not in any way show that you were shooting less or more than your teammates, much less say anything at all about differences between the calculated and actual results of your build.

    "I don't bother with theories, hypotheses or well-designed experiments and just go with my feelings and anecdotal evidence" is exactly how we get ideas like "a fire in a closed container burns out because the air absorbed all the phlogiston."
    What i mean is just because it says you have 60% CHC & 200% CHD does not mean because you have that it will give you a 100% correct calculation, give or take it maybe 10-20k out in the real game, like i said this game is heavy on stats and there is going to be room for error.

    Oh and trust me, i have played the game long enough to not misinterpret a shot doing no damage, as for evidence i gave up long ago doing that as it got me nowhere, i didn't do it as evidence for people on this forum, why should i? they ain't going to fix things and neither did Ubi....things get fixed when it effects players by the 1,000's or it's a exploit.

    Couple of videos i made and to this day now it still happens:





    Please don't mention the hold to move out of cover option in game settings, that's an option not a fix.



    Back in the day when you could pretty much spam Blinder Firefly (before the nerf) i was running a full skill build based around Blinder Firefly, so i was using that skill about 95% of my time whilst playing, the other 5% was shooting a bullet to trigger a talent so my Dps was minimal with my weapon but yet i done the most kills.....not sure what part ain't sinking in.
    Share this post

  5. #145
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Wouldn't using Fox's have better results against Chungas and Dogs? Or did we determine that those actually don't count as OOC?
    I guess you'd need to bring the specialisation into consideration too -- LLP is not the only reason to use technician. So you'd gain, or not, that additional damage to dogs. I'm unsure of a chunga's class too but I could test that easily enough in the open world as you often find a lone chunga out and about. It was a long while ago now but I think I'm correct in saying that the devs went on record stating that they did not want Fox's Prayer to be a universal BiS and rebalanced it with that in mind. From that alone I think we can say they are not universal BiS.

    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Really though, I think my initial instincts of it coming down to personal playstyle were correct, as long as the rest of the build is optimized.
    I couldn't agree more with that statement. Wear what you want, play how you want and afford others the same courtesy.
    Share this post

  6. #146
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    I guess you'd need to bring the specialisation into consideration too
    Well, lets keep the discussion to figuring out if the DOOC works on them first before discussing build options.

    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    I couldn't agree more with that statement. Wear what you want, play how you want and afford others the same courtesy.
    I was thinking more along the lines of building to shore up your weaknesses. If you have problems with rushers, as CategoryTheory has mentioned, then spec for DOOC. If you like sitting back in a more secure position and fighting at mid to long range, then Sawyers. If you like run-n-gun, then use W&H.

    The name of the game appears to me to be specializing in different areas of effectiveness, and not "One gearing to rule them all".
    Share this post

  7. #147
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    In that video you are correct in pointing out that strained procced and that is the source of different crit values for the same weapon in that video...
    I don't even recall if I pointed that out. I have pointed out the NON-crit difference at least three times now, and you refuse to address it.

    You also continue to refuse to give a full account of your build. (Just write the darn thing down and post it here; you have examples of how to do this earlier in the thread.)

    You really look like you're hiding something here.

    I've done a sizeable amount of analysing this.
    Not really, no. You've done a few experiments with confounding factors and refused to analyze what's going on, and why you're getting different results from what you would be getting in any of the builds I've described. The most likely cause is just that your builds are not the ones I've described, differing in some important way. You refuse to investigate what that difference is. You refuse to calculate, using the easy methods I've shown you at least twice in detail, what the build you think you have should be producing. You refuse even to fully describe your build. This is not analysis; this is just mucking about trying to avoid real analysis.

    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    Same outcome though in that in the build shown in the video(which I think ought to be perfectly clear to a vet) Fox's performs the worst.
    Well, I'm no longer totally clear on what videos people are watching here (which is why I prefer just to write things down), but at least one observer of one of your videos seems to see that Fox is not the worst:

    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    • W&H 2pc had a high hit of 543k at 5 stacks of strained.
    • Fox's had a high of 555k also at 5 sacks of strained.
    • Sawyers at full stacks had over 600k high.

    Is not 555k better than 543k? The results listed above are in the general range of what I'd expect to see, and the sort of thing my calculations produce.

    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    If you like run-n-gun, then use W&H.
    What's the advantage of W&H for run-n-gun if it does less damage, per above? I would think that in run-n-gun you'd be seeing more enemies OOC (because you're pushing them to move around) so it wouldn't be better damage against targets in cover, would it?
    Share this post

  8. #148
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
    What i mean is just because it says you have 60% CHC & 200% CHD does not mean because you have that it will give you a 100% correct calculation, give or take it maybe 10-20k out in the real game, like i said this game is heavy on stats and there is going to be room for error.
    I can't comment on CHC; I've not felt it worthwhile to record a lot of video and analyze it hit by hit to determine what it really is in-game compared to the nominal value.

    But CHD? I've many times calculated what the damage from a crit should be for a given CHD and compared it to the firing range, and I've never found any disagreement there. I see no reason that this would ever be 10-20k out, since it's a very straightfoward calculation involving clear figures and no RNG. Do you have any examples where you've seen a difference and carefully confirmed that it really does differ from what the build is calculated to produce? (It's easy to make errors here by missing something in the build that the computer didn't miss.)

    As for your other comments, I have no idea how you were getting kills by blinding but not shooting enemies, or what either that or turrets have to do with calculating the damage done by a build with and without Fox's Prayer. If your point is that there is wonkyness in the game, sure, there is. That does not mean that everything in the game is wonky. I am looking at what is pretty clearly one of the non-wonky things: nobody has yet shown me in-game results that don't match my calculations. (Noting here that my calculations do not produce a valid result if you leave out parts of the build.)
    Share this post

  9. #149
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    I don't even recall if I pointed that out. I have pointed out the NON-crit difference at least three times now, and you refuse to address it.

    You also continue to refuse to give a full account of your build. (Just write the darn thing down and post it here; you have examples of how to do this earlier in the thread.)

    You really look like you're hiding something here.
    Then you're not paying close enough attention as I have already stated why, and that your assertion about strained was correct and how I have gone on to repeat the tests in multiple formats yada yada yada. The build is in the video and you get to see all of its uncomplicated aspects easily enough so your criticism here is weaksauce. Look at the damned video it's all there in front of your eyes.

    You are wrong, so get over it already.
    Share this post

  10. #150
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Well, lets keep the discussion to figuring out if the DOOC works on them first before discussing build options.



    I was thinking more along the lines of building to shore up your weaknesses. If you have problems with rushers, as CategoryTheory has mentioned, then spec for DOOC. If you like sitting back in a more secure position and fighting at mid to long range, then Sawyers. If you like run-n-gun, then use W&H.

    The name of the game appears to me to be specializing in different areas of effectiveness, and not "One gearing to rule them all".
    Ah, I see what you were getting at now. Sure you deploy whatever methods you find successful to deal with whatever it is causing you issues. I find that tends to change from map to map and even moment to moment though so I usually build with four guidelines in mind: Firepower, Mobilty, Survivability and Useability. There's a shotty in all my loadouts and there always has been since day one and that's my rusher solution (Sweet Dreams is great for that until it's an Elite but 1.5m pump pump does the trick anyway).

    One gear to rule them all yeah I'd call nonsense on anyone who claimed that. I'll generally switch loadouts at least three times throughout a mission simply because some builds work better than others in the same environment. I try to be flexible throughout a mission and if whatever the group composition is isn't working I can switch around until it does start working. Legendaries would probably be the only exception to that as I'll pick a role and stick to it for those.

    *edit except that AR guy. He's the only one without a shotty because he doesn't need it really as it's able to one clip a named elite in heroic.
    Share this post