🛈 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. #61
    Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
    First off this IMO.

    Shooting range means nothing because all the targets are stationary.

    God rolled gear and the right items may look good on paper and the numbers but it means jack shi* if you are not hitting the target (even though it shows you are) in game not the shooting range.

    Don't ask me why but Accuracy + Stabilty (even though the weapon feels accurate and stable) is much better than CHC + CHD.

    Accuracy + Stabilty + Optimal Range (depending on weapon for this one) wins hands down for me.

    Why? I ain't got a clue

    EDIT: Give it a try, drop some CHC+CHD for stabilty + accuracy until you feel like it's maxed out, i do believe that it has diminishing returns at some point.....sometimes the best way to tell if your weapon is 100% stable to just shoot at a wall in the open world and see how it looks...aim for [all bullets land at the same spot].
    Yep, I pretty much agree with this. I have configurations biased toward weapon handling, accuracy and stability that while they do less maximum damage on the range -- again, I agree too as undloading a clip into a wooden target tells me so little about how it performs on mission -- that outdamage builds biased toward CHC.CHD. The why is that there are so many variables outside of raw damage calculations (which generally ignore weapon handling variables completely) that feed into performance. Measuring a clip on a range is in no way comparable to a 45 minute mission with high levels of chaos thrown into the mix.

    That's not to say that looking at those numbers has no use; they give a good guide to a build's output, but I am saying that a good build is more than good damage and that builds that outperform damage focused builds do so because they balance other aspects such as armour, useability, reliability etc. Even after you have thrown everything you can at analysing a build you can't transfer that performance to a different player. For myself, there are too many variables to performance for it to be reliably described by basic damage calculations as they are defined currently.
    Share this post

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    But in the end, for what we're discussing in this thread, accuracy and stability are irrelevant because, no matter your hit rate, you get the same answer regarding use of Fox's Prayer and the like. So just set them as you please.

    Here's why you get the same answer. In a high-red build you have +15% weapon damage (Wdmg) from your weapon, +15% from your specialization, and at least +60% from four red cores, giving you a minimum of +90% Wdmg. Accuracy and stability can be substituted for none of these buffs.

    At that +90% Wdmg point, +8% on a different multiplier is equivalent to +15% Wdmg, so from that point on Fox's is better than Wdmg buffs for targets out of cover. Whether you decide to go with additional Wdmg or additional stability makes no difference: you use Fox's either way.
    This. Theoretical damage based off your gear is orthogonal to your personal accuracy.

    If a build is X% stronger or weaker on paper, it's going to be X% stronger or weaker regardless of whether you land 10% or 60% of your shots. Hence this discussion. In the niche of full Red DPS builds, Fox's Prayer will more often than not produce the highest potential damage.

    If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, then swap some damage for WH, but don't pretend like that invalidates the discussion at hand.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    Yep, I pretty much agree with this. I have configurations biased toward weapon handling, accuracy and stability that while they do less maximum damage on the range -- again, I agree too as undloading a clip into a wooden target tells me so little about how it performs on mission -- that outdamage builds biased toward CHC.CHD. The why is that there are so many variables outside of raw damage calculations (which generally ignore weapon handling variables completely) that feed into performance. Measuring a clip on a range is in no way comparable to a 45 minute mission with high levels of chaos thrown into the mix.

    That's not to say that looking at those numbers has no use; they give a good guide to a build's output, but I am saying that a good build is more than good damage and that builds that outperform damage focused builds do so because they balance other aspects such as armour, useability, reliability etc. Even after you have thrown everything you can at analysing a build you can't transfer that performance to a different player. For myself, there are too many variables to performance for it to be reliably described by basic damage calculations as they are defined currently.
    I've been hoping someone would take the time to measure the Accuracy, Stability & Range of all weapons so I can incorporate them into my calculator.. but alas, no one has and I don't have the desire

    All this talk.. and I mainly use a PfE build with two blue cores .. because it's more fun.. I still like calculating loadouts though
    Share this post

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
    This. Theoretical damage based off your gear is orthogonal to your personal accuracy.

    If a build is X% stronger or weaker on paper, it's going to be X% stronger or weaker regardless of whether you land 10% or 60% of your shots. Hence this discussion. In the niche of full Red DPS builds, Fox's Prayer will more often than not produce the highest potential damage.

    If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, then swap some damage for WH, but don't pretend like that invalidates the discussion at hand.
    I think it would be an error to claim that missing a shot undermined the argument for CHC/CHD, but it would also be an error to insert a perfect player performing perfectly into a mission that ran perfectly etc. As a guide I have no problems with using those numbers but for determining what I run then there's way more that I look at from mission to mission, to event to event, to farm targets, bounties etc etc. Raw numbers are a bit myopic for my liking.

    edit*

    Exactly. Best in Slot is Most Fun in Slot and who are we to define another's fun.
    Share this post

  5. #65
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    This is simply wrong. While the difference between moving and stationary targets is indeed important, this does not mean the shooting range means nothing. It just means that the shooting range doesn't give you the complete picture. It still gives plenty of useful information.

    I mean it means nothing compared to what's happening in game, all it can do is tell you how much dps you are doing with what you have equipped, does not mean you will be pushing out that dps in the game.


    So you're saying that when I see a damage number popping up, I may not actually be doing that damage? That's a bold statement, and I believe it to be incorrect, though I'm willing to consider evidence otherwise.

    Nope, what i'm saying it you will not be seeing them high numbers all the time, not unless you can get an headshot with every bullet

    No need to ask you why: if one is not hitting the target, one isn't doing damage. That's fairly obvious. So yes, one should be taking accuracy and stability into account and making appropriate trade-offs there.

    What i mean by that is having more stability + accuracy than is needed is better than chc + chd, that's why i said don't ask me why.

    For you, sure. But this is why we do a proper analysis of individual builds, rather than making hard and fast rules. You're probably not using a rifle, for example, where you can change the stability on the fly by changing fire rate. Depending on how you play, it may be better to increase stability that way in certain situations (such as at longer range) than to take the hit on damage at close range because you prioritized stability buffs that have little effect at close ranges.

    I have played TD1 + TD2 since launch and over all them years i have done plenty of testing, maybe more testing than i should of and the conclusion i have is that the game is too dodgy to give proper readings.

    Note: Rifle is my main build, so much so my forum name is.........

    Optimal range is the same. The drop-off isn't as bad as you might think: you always do over 40% damage even out to 99 m on all weapons, even on a Double-barreled Sawed Off with 8 m optimum range. (It was the firing range that led me to this discovery.) So depending on the ranges at which you work and the particular curve of the weapon, increasing optimal range may make no difference.

    In a ideal world your calculations would be right, but not in this game.

    ────────────────────────────────────────

    But in the end, for what we're discussing in this thread, accuracy and stability are irrelevant because, no matter your hit rate, you get the same answer regarding use of Fox's Prayer and the like. So just set them as you please.

    Here's why you get the same answer. In a high-red build you have +15% weapon damage (Wdmg) from your weapon, +15% from your specialization, and at least +60% from four red cores, giving you a minimum of +90% Wdmg. Accuracy and stability can be substituted for none of these buffs.

    At that +90% Wdmg point, +8% on a different multiplier is equivalent to +15% Wdmg, so from that point on Fox's is better than Wdmg buffs for targets out of cover. Whether you decide to go with additional Wdmg or additional stability makes no difference: you use Fox's either way.

    Having Fox's prayer and not having them the dps is miniscule, hardly worth doing calculations for, this is TD, there are no Kil'Jaeden's in TD

    As long as you have a decent build with good synergy and decent stats nothing in the game cannot be beaten if played correctly, no +10 or -10k dps is going to change that.


    But hey, if doing calculations floats your boat go for it.

    I would multi quote but it makes my firefox go all skew wiff.
    Share this post

  6. #66
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    A "decent build" is a pile of small synergies and optimized choices stacked up. Small choices like using Fox's Prayer or not. Which is why we're having this discussion at all.

    While I'm a large advocate of skill and practice making up for a lack of perfect rolls or optimization, that doesn't mean I ignore its value. Nor should you.
    Share this post

  7. #67
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    While I'm a large advocate of skill and practice making up for a lack of perfect rolls or optimization, that doesn't mean I ignore its value. Nor should you.
    Who says i do? I just don't think +10k or -10k etc etc is going to make or break the game.....well not this type of game anyway.
    Share this post

  8. #68
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
    I've been hoping someone would take the time to measure the Accuracy, Stability & Range of all weapons so I can incorporate them into my calculator.
    Well, it's not just a matter of taking the time. Just looking at "stability," its something that's very hard to quantify.

    Currently, I consider stability for fully automatic weapons to be how close to its original aim point the weapon returns before the next round is fired. (This is subject to change as I learn more about this, of course.) When stability is less than perfect (and even a full-bar stability stat seems to be less than perfect) what next comes into play is how easy it is for the player to compensate by moving the mouse to bring the aim point back to its original position as you fire. I have no idea how to quantify this.

    But that's just a start, because semi-auto weapons, for which you can manually vary the fire rate, thus have variable stability. With any rifle I can simply slow my fire rate to give it more time to return to its original aim point between shots and achieve essentially perfect stability. (This does not mean the next shot will land in the same spot if I wait long enough; the accuracy stat determines the range around the aim point in which the shot may land.) That means you're trading off stability and DPS, which introduces a whole new set of complexities that make stability alone not something to directly optimise.

    And then there are further factors involved, such as the extra time, seemingly independent of the stability stat, that it takes marksman rifles to return to their aim point as compared to (non-marksman) rifles.

    This is all worth further research, but at our current state of knowledge, "stability" doesn't seem to be something you can just pop into a calculator. I will have more to say on the relationship between fully and less quantifiable things in my next post.
    Share this post

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Well, it's not just a matter of taking the time. Just looking at "stability," its something that's very hard to quantify.

    ...

    This is all worth further research, but at our current state of knowledge, "stability" doesn't seem to be something you can just pop into a calculator. I will have more to say on the relationship between fully and less quantifiable things in my next post.
    It would be extremely difficult to quantify stability/accuracy/reload/speed/swap speed for us as players, but I'd hope it would be a breeze for the devs; otherwise I'd wonder if it's just a spread sheet somewhere As you say though, that would just be the start as there are so many things that do quantify 'performance' but aren't easily analysed. Performance itself is an ill-defined concept as it often means different things to different people. Those calculaions that we can use to describe a build certainly have use but for myself they are just one set of metrics to help build a character.
    Share this post

  10. #70
    I use Steady Handed while I load on CHC with ACOG.
    The talent stack works quite well as the first shots are the ones easier to land.

    For CQB heavy missions, Near Sighted is very good. Glory Daze loaded with CHC!!!
    Share this post