Damage Chart

[SFJake]

Here's the complete damage chart for this game.

http://imageshack.com/a/img842/5162/57wx.png

Version: Open Beta 1

Damage chart includes damage to everything from infantry to building, as well as Damage Per Second counts.

All was done from in-game, and as such many numbers are actually only close or rounded. They should however be representative of their relative power.

Just a few notes:

-Most weapons do headshot damage, however:

-Headshot damage is nothing like the old Renegade (where it was pretty much universally 5x, 3x for the neck I believe). Now, every weapon has its own sets of head & chest damage. There is no neck damage in this game.

-The shotgun does not do additional damage in the head (so stop aiming for it! I was! Its bad!)

-Many weapons with "burn over time" effect or "poison" actually do LESS or NO burn/poison damage on a headshot

-The Transport Helicopter's Gattling Guns do 0 damage on headshots (obviously a glitch)

-MCT take 0 damage from vehicles (I do mean zero, none whatsoever)

Anyway, enjoy.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

What the hell, Rocket Officer does more DPS vs. buildings than Gunner? That's got to be an oversight.

Nice work btw.

EDIT: Missing numbers on the Grenadier.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[SFJake]

Yeah, I think something is screwed in how I handled the reload time and rate of fire for DPS calculation for stuff that only have 1 shot. I'll have to take a closer look at those again.

[Letty]

No, it's an oversight on the devs part to let things be so imbalanced. You're numbers look correct there, I just ran a test and Gunners are doing less damage over time to buildings than Rocket Soldiers.

[iovandrake]

It's the gunner reload time. It's way too long.

[Valor]

Feels like every reload time is too long, especially Sydney/Raveshaw, snipers, and helis. Still don't get why the devs changed some of these.

Which contrasts badly with the fast-paced movement of this game.

[Letty]

Gunner reload time is alright, the Rocket Soldier just magically does more than 2x as much damage per shot as Gunner. And for some reason the Grenadier does way too much damage too, they have almost the same as gunner and they have large clips just like him as well. Both Rocket Soldier and Grenadiers look like they need a 50% nerf to their damage vs. buildings.

[SFJake]

Damn, this is hard to swallow but yes, the rocket soldier out DPS the gunner on buildings. That is honestly shocking.

Looking at it, yeah, I think Gunner just has too low damage VS building for just no reason. (I guess we should consider early rocket soldier rushes, rush the hill on walls, kill buildings, fun times)

I do think some weapons could use a better reload time though. I mean, why was the PIC nerfed? I think the difference is only 0.3 second (and a bit more for the railgun). They will have low DPS anyway.

(That really made me re-think how I see base defense, by the way. A sydney for base defense just sounds utterly awful besides the current weapon-switch glitching, well, I mean compared to quite a few other choices)

[iovandrake]

Gunner reload time is alright, the Rocket Soldier just magically does more than 2x as much damage per shot as Gunner. And for some reason the Grenadier does way too much damage too, they have almost the same as gunner and they have large clips just like him as well. Both Rocket Soldier and Grenadiers look like they need a 50% nerf to their damage vs. buildings.

It "magically" does more damage because it's a single fire rocket. It's balanced compared to the 6 shot gunner that can spam smaller shots. It's only the reload time that makes the gunner's rockets weaker overall. They shouldn't be more powerful than a single rocket. It makes no sense for the gunner to have the ability to fire 6 rockets quickly and for them to be stronger than the Rocket Soldier's single rocket. They should do the same damage they do now at the same rate, but the Gunner needs to be able to reload slightly faster to bring his DPS up.

As for the Grenadier he's incredibly short range and not as good against buildings as a Gunner. No way does a grenade launcher compare with a weapon that can practically hit the other side of the map.

[Letty]

Gunner reload time is alright, the Rocket Soldier just magically does more than 2x as much damage per shot as Gunner. And for some reason the Grenadier does way too much damage too, they have almost the same as gunner and they have large clips just like him as well. Both Rocket Soldier and Grenadiers look like they need a 50% nerf to their damage vs. buildings.

It "magically" does more damage because it's a single fire rocket. It's balanced compared to the 6 shot gunner that can spam smaller shots. It's only the reload time that makes the gunner's rockets weaker overall. They shouldn't be more powerful than a single rocket. It makes no sense for the gunner to have the ability to fire 6 rockets quickly and for them to be stronger than the Rocket Soldier's single rocket. They should do the same damage they do now at the same rate, but the Gunner needs to be able to reload slightly faster to bring his DPS up.

You are so wrong it's hard for me to choose where to start...

Gunner is a more expensive unit. Gunner is supposed to be more powerful than the Rocket Soldier. In Renegade they do exactly the same damage per shot and Gunner fired far faster than the Rocket Soldier. This is the point of Gunner. He is GDI's specialized unit for killing buildings. If he is not doing far more damage against buildings than any other infantry in the game then he is not fulfilling his role. Please learn how the game works before posting.

As for the Grenadier he's incredibly short range and not as good against buildings as a Gunner. No way does a grenade launcher compare with a weapon that can practically hit the other side of the map.

A $0 unit should not be dealing DPS comparable to the unit that is designed to be the ultimate building killer. If you don't realize this then again, you have no idea how the game works. There are plenty of instances in which Gunner's range is completely irrelevant, and he should not be outclassed in killing buildings by a free character in these instances.

[GatsuFox]

Gonna do splash damage ranges? Or do they even have range?

[iovandrake]

You are so wrong it's hard for me to choose where to start...

Okay, if you say so.

Gunner is a more expensive unit.

Which is why it has more HP. It's only 175 credits more expensive too so let's not act like it's a 800 credit difference or something stupid like that.

Gunner is supposed to be more powerful than the Rocket Soldier.

Wrong. You assume it should based on your own opinion.

In Renegade they do exactly the same damage per shot and Gunner fired far faster than the Rocket Soldier. This is the point of Gunner. He is GDI's specialized unit for killing buildings. If he is not doing far more damage against buildings than any other infantry in the game then he is not fulfilling his role. Please learn how the game works before posting.

Wait, wait, wait... You're telling me you are now in favor of the gunner doing faster damage? You were arguing he should do more before. Now you admit his rocket launcher merely shot faster than the normal one? Well I'll be... So my saying that raising his Damage Per Second by adjusting his obscenely long reload time is stupid, but him merely shooting faster isn't?

Also I find it hilarious that you move on to insulting my knowledge of the game when I played Old Renegade for more than 5 years. I'm well experienced with how the old game worked (or didn't work) so save your elitist bs for someone else. Seriously people who cry "noob" when someone disagrees with them are pathetic. Yeah I just called you pathetic, go cry about it.

A $0 unit should not be dealing DPS comparable to the unit that is designed to be the ultimate building killer. If you don't realize this then again, you have no idea how the game works. There are plenty of instances in which Gunner's range is completely irrelevant, and he should not be outclassed in killing buildings by a free character in these instances.

A $0 should be useless then? That's what it seems you want. Making money units far superior to free units makes free units worthless. The grenadier has a special role as a free high damage unit vs vehicles and structures. It shouldn't have gimped DPS just so you can feel better about your 400 credit unit. Gunners have more HP, longer range, and a straight shot. It takes far more skill to use a grenadier vs buildings or vehicles than a gunner and they die far easier. It's a joke that you are even complaining about this like they are similar at all. It's like arguing that since a Havoc costs 1000 credits Riflemen shouldn't be able to kill with their free gun. I mean that's a 1000 credit difference right? So the havoc should be a billion gazillion times better so Letty can feel good about dropping 1000 credits on him, right? Of course you wouldn't argue that, but you are essentially arguing the same thing with the grenadier and Gunner. The gunner shouldn't be leaps and bounds better for 400 credits. That's a paltry sum of credits. I've flushed thousands of credits in efforts to help my team win in a single match and you're crying about 400 and 175 credit differences like they mean the world.

So yeah a sensible solution to the Gunner's DPS would be to reduce it's MASSIVE reload time. Not silly crap like nerfing the Rocket Soldier or Grenadier classes.

[SFJake]

So we arguing on the same side or something? We all want gunner more effective against buildings than the rocket soldier, right? Whatever the way they do it. I'm personally up for only increasing his damage against building because the rest seemed fine, but thats just me. I don't want other nerfed either (the rocket soldier isn't actually that good outside of his new-found DPS against building and the Grenadier seemed fine to me, the flamethrower needing a buff). Really, all the problems we discussed from the numbers here are due to pure building damage.

Gonna do splash damage ranges? Or do they even have range?

They do have range, you can definitely hit someone from a certain distance and it'll do damage, which seems proportional to how far it was from them. Even burn damage will change according to that.

I'd just have no idea how to put those range into numbers.

[GatsuFox]

Gonna do splash damage ranges? Or do they even have range?

They do have range, you can definitely hit someone from a certain distance and it'll do damage, which seems proportional to how far it was from them. Even burn damage will change according to that.

I'd just have no idea how to put those range into numbers.

The standard way is to do ((high) - (low)). High being closest non-direct damage and low being furthest non direct damage of course.

DPS is irrelevant for splash.

In-between damages are just assumed to be included.

[Letty]

Which is why it has more HP. It's only 175 credits more expensive too so let's not act like it's a 800 credit difference or something stupid like that.

It's also GDI's unique unit, in the same way that SBH is Nod's unique unit. It's supposed to be much more powerful, like it was in Renegade.

Gunner is supposed to be more powerful than the Rocket Soldier.

Wrong. You assume it should based on your own opinion.

See now this is what makes it clear that you didn't play Renegade. Gunner is supposed to be a Rocket Soldier that shoots the exact same rockets, but faster. Rocket Soldier already has a buff that they don't have in Renegade (lock-on rockets), they didn't need a 2x damage increase.

In Renegade they do exactly the same damage per shot and Gunner fired far faster than the Rocket Soldier. This is the point of Gunner. He is GDI's specialized unit for killing buildings. If he is not doing far more damage against buildings than any other infantry in the game then he is not fulfilling his role. Please learn how the game works before posting.

Wait, wait, wait... You're telling me you are now in favor of the gunner doing faster damage? You were arguing he should do more before. Now you admit his rocket launcher merely shot faster than the normal one? Well I'll be... So my saying that raising his Damage Per Second by adjusting his obscenely long reload time is stupid, but him merely shooting faster isn't?

You aren't even reading the thread. The issue is that Rocket Soldiers do 2.1x as much damage per shot as Gunner vs. buildings, while Gunners fire only 1.6x faster. The Rocket soldiers should do the exact same damage per rocket as Gunner while Gunner keeps their current firing rate (which is approximately that of Renegade).

Also I find it hilarious that you move on to insulting my knowledge of the game when I played Old Renegade for more than 5 years. I'm well experienced with how the old game worked (or didn't work) so save your elitist bs for someone else. Seriously people who cry "noob" when someone disagrees with them are pathetic. Yeah I just called you pathetic, go cry about it.

I'm sorry but you clearly don't show it.

A $0 should be useless then? That's what it seems you want. Making money units far superior to free units makes free units worthless. The grenadier has a special role as a free high damage unit vs vehicles and structures. It shouldn't have gimped DPS just so you can feel better about your 400 credit unit. Gunners have more HP, longer range, and a straight shot. It takes far more skill to use a grenadier vs buildings or vehicles than a gunner and they die far easier. It's a joke that you are even complaining about this like they are similar at all. It's like arguing that since a Havoc costs 1000 credits Riflemen shouldn't be able to kill with their free gun. I mean that's a 1000 credit difference right? So the havoc should be a billion gazillion times better so Letty can feel good about dropping 1000 credits on him, right? Of course you wouldn't argue that, but you are essentially arguing the same thing with the grenadier and Gunner. The gunner shouldn't be leaps and bounds better for 400 credits. That's a paltry sum of credits. I've flushed thousands of credits in efforts to help my team win in a single match and you're crying about 400 and 175 credit differences like they mean the world.

Oh god please stop posting. Grenadiers were fine in Renegade, they didn't need to be made 2x as powerful.

So yeah a sensible solution to the Gunner's DPS would be to reduce it's MASSIVE reload time. Not silly crap like nerfing the Rocket Soldier or Grenadier classes.

Except that Rocket Soldiers and Grenadiers are clearly over powered at the moment. Buffing Gunner to be better than them vs. buildings would just make Gunner insanely OP. Gunner is currently approximately correctly powered and the two classes which are way outside their intended power levels need to be nerfed.

[iovandrake]

So we arguing on the same side or something? We all want gunner more effective against buildings than the rocket soldier, right? Whatever the way they do it. I'm personally up for only increasing his damage against building because the rest seemed fine, but thats just me. I don't want other nerfed either (the rocket soldier isn't actually that good outside of his new-found DPS against building and the Grenadier seemed fine to me, the flamethrower needing a buff). Really, all the problems we discussed from the numbers here are due to pure building damage.

Gonna do splash damage ranges? Or do they even have range?

They do have range, you can definitely hit someone from a certain distance and it'll do damage, which seems proportional to how far it was from them. Even burn damage will change according to that.

I'd just have no idea how to put those range into numbers.

Yeah I want Gunner to be effective for his cost and I agree his DPS should be higher. I just don't want the Rocket Soldier being nerfed (old Ren rocket soldier was barely worth using ever) and I don't think Gunner needs his damage per rocket buffed (as that will just be nerfing the Rocket Soldier's one rocket). I think since the gunner has more shots that they should each be weaker but their culmative effect should be better. The only thing ruining Gunner's DPS is his reload time. It's longer than the RS's which is what makes the DPS lower than it should be.

[Letty]

Also FWIW, I tested the Grenadier and the Grenadier does about 5-10% more DPS against buildings than Gunner, which is consistent with the spreadsheet if you fill in the missing data. Hilarious.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[iovandrake]

It's also GDI's unique unit, in the same way that SBH is Nod's unique unit. It's supposed to be much more powerful, like it was in Renegade.

Which is why reducing the reload time would help his DPS. I still don't see a reasonable argument from you on why that's stupid. Just you claiming it is.

See now this is what makes it clear that you didn't play Renegade. Gunner is supposed to be a Rocket Soldier that shoots the exact same rockets, but faster. Rocket Soldier already has a buff that they don't have in Renegade (lock-on rockets), they didn't need a 2x damage increase.

This boils down to not understanding that the word "powerful" doesn't just mean each shot individually. His shots are not supposed to be stronger. He's supposed to do more damage overall. You jumped to the conclusion that I would talk about these two units like I didn't know that the Gunner was better. Did people call for Rocket Soldier rushes very often? No. They called for Gunner rushes. "Gunners meet at barracks!". I'm arguing against your claim that Gunner's need more powerful rockets. I do not agree with THAT in the context of "powerful". He has more in his magazine and fires them faster. That should be where his DPS comes from. The speed he fires them should be what makes him a higher DPS rocketman.

You aren't even reading the thread. The issue is that Rocket Soldiers do 2.1x as much damage per shot as Gunner vs. buildings, while Gunners fire only 1.6x faster. The Rocket soldiers should do the exact same damage per rocket as Gunner while Gunner keeps their current firing rate (which is approximately that of Renegade).

Let me spell this out for you. If. Gunner. Reload. Faster. Gunner. Do. More. Damage. Per. Second. Understand? Rocket Soldiers SHOULD do more damage PER SHOT. Why? They only have ONE SHOT. This should be a no brainer. Gunner is firing smaller rockets. He has more of them. His DPS advantage should come from that. It doesn't merely because of his long reload time.

I'm sorry but you clearly don't show it.

Only because of your comprehension fail.

Oh god please stop posting. Grenadiers were fine in Renegade, they didn't need to be made 2x as powerful.

Grenadier were not fine. They had a niche role of early harvester harassment, early money earning at the start of some matches (notably City against the airstrip), and last ditch free defense against vehicles when being rushed. They were outmatched and useless in most situations. Yeah a good grenadier (which I happened to be) could do wonders with them. A good player can do wonders with any unit.

Except that Rocket Soldiers and Grenadiers are clearly over powered at the moment. Buffing Gunner to be better than them vs. buildings would just make Gunner insanely OP. Gunner is currently approximately correctly powered and the two classes which are way outside their intended power levels need to be nerfed.

No they do not need to be nerfed because doing so makes them near useless with the current selection of classes and weapons. The only thing that needs to be done is Gunners reloading slightly faster. That would even it out perfectly without shitting on units you think should be crap. No point in arguing with you though. You're not only stubborn but you're also an elitist prick who assumes that his own misunderstanding in a conversation is someone else's inexperience.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[iovandrake]

Also FWIW, I tested the Grenadier and the Grenadier does about 5-10% more DPS against buildings than Gunner, which is consistent with the spreadsheet if you fill in the missing data. Hilarious.

5-10% more DPS? What's that amount to in a real match? Oh yeah the close up grenadier getting sniped or bumrushed by the enemy while trying to slowly whittle a building down with his grenade launcher. Your understanding of the numbers is completely divorced from real game scenarios.

[Letty]

Yeah I want Gunner to be effective for his cost and I agree his DPS should be higher. I just don't want the Rocket Soldier being nerfed (old Ren rocket soldier was barely worth using ever) and I don't think Gunner needs his damage per rocket buffed (as that will just be nerfing the Rocket Soldier's one rocket). I think since the gunner has more shots that they should each be weaker but their culmative effect should be better. The only thing ruining Gunner's DPS is his reload time. It's longer than the RS's which is what makes the DPS lower than it should be.

Except Gunner is basically unchanged in Renegade X from Renegade. His Reload time was equally long. His damage was exactly the same vs. buildings. I'd go so far to say that Gunner is *exactly* the same now as he was before. The Rocket Officer just got a 2.1x damage vs. buildings increase out of nowhere.

You literally don't know how Renegade works, or maybe you forgot it. Go back and play it.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You keep trying to put words in my mouth I haven't said and then hold them against me. It's *very* clear to anyone with experience in Renegade that Rocket Officers and Grenadiers should not be dealing this much damage against buildings. That is all.

[iovandrake]

So we should change the Rocket Soldier back? Why not change Gunner's reload time if Rocket Soldier also got a change? Is this a purist stance you are making? I don't see the logic otherwise.

You literally don't know how Renegade works, or maybe you forgot it. Go back and play it.

Here you go again not understanding what the hell I'm talking about and assuming I said something I didn't.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You keep trying to put words in my mouth I haven't said and then hold them against me. It's *very* clear to anyone with experience in Renegade that Rocket Officers and Grenadiers should not be dealing this much damage against buildings. That is all.

They shouldn't because you say so and you're the grand arbiter on all things Renegade, right? As far as I knew there weren't airstrikes, tiberium silos, or a host of changes that happen to be in Renegade X in the original Renegade either. I guess your argument is that we should all just be playing vanilla Renegade then?

[SFJake]

Just pointing out that I fixed a few oversights I could find (#VALUE and Grenadier was missing just one piece for the formula, as you said its damage is also higher than Gunner's on buildings), link in the first post was changed to http://imageshack.com/a/img842/5162/57wx.png

[HaTe]

You can't just divide 1 by the reload time to get the RoF for 1 shot per clip weapons. The RoF is technically "100" for these weapons (or max), and the reload time is separate. For instance:

Name SwitchTime ReloadTime CanSnipe ClipSize MaxInventoryRounds Warhead Damage Damage Neckshot Damage Headshot Range Velocity RateOfFire SprayAngle SprayCount SprayBulletCost

Medium Tank 0 1.5 0 1 -1 6 80 240 400 100 100 100 0 1 1

^Is just a brief showing of a few of the calculations for Renegade. the RoF is the max (100) for 1 shot reload weapons, and the reload time remains separate. You do not add the reload time in for every other weapon's RoF, and this is no exception.

DPS is also not a FPS calculation. DPS is almost strictly for MMORPG games, and for good reason. It does not fit into Renegade or Renegade X. The only guns you can actually compare "DPS" for are the 1 bullet per clip guns if they have the same reload time. A gun can easily pass another gun in DPS depending on the time of the reload. Therefore, DPS is not a valid calculation because it is not consistent whatsoever. For instance, the mobius in Renegade did more damage than the PIC while the PIC was reloading, but upon hitting the next shot, the PIC would then pass the mobius. The cycle would continue like that, until eventually the mobius will continue to do more overall damage than the PIC has done (meaning the PIC can no longer pass it again). The game is not measured in seconds, so DPS is not a valid measurement.

Also, for the record, the rocket officer and the gunner in Renegade did almost the exact same damage. The difference came in RoF and velocity, but the damage upon contact was almost exactly equal.

[SFJake]

I'm not a math genius. However the true average DPS is just a DPS that considers reload time as a factor (which makes it a much more accurate tool for, say, if you keep firing on a target non-stop for a whole minute).

True DPS as it is is relevant enough, it does say the amount of damage you can expect to be doing to a building or a vehicle as you assault it.

There's a lot of other factor yes, but numbers are numbers, these numbers are accurate enough and represent something.

I'm not trying to pretend that they have an absolute meaning and higher DPS = better weapon instantly. However, we can use these numbers to get a better idea of their damage potential, which is an important factor.

DPS against infantry is most definitely a lot less important than against vehicles and buildings, for instance.

I'm not sure I really get what you're trying to tell me, though.

[Letty]

Yes, it's obviously hard to compare DPS vs. infantry directly, and DPS vs. vehicles is still somewhat hard with dodging, or popping out to fire and reload, or w/e.

But DPS is pretty directly comparable for buildings. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 1% DPS each has 20s for the enemy to stop them before the building dies. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 2% DPS each has 10s.

Buildings don't exactly dodge or anything, and there aren't any non-beacon weapons that can one-shot a building and ignore the reload time because the building already died. The only real issue is range, which does disadvantage grenadiers in some situations but in the vast majority the grenadier can still reach the target by arcing.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[HaTe]

Let me try and explain the same example in depth a little more for clarification purposes.

The PIC is a 1 bullet per clip weapon (meaning its RoF is effectively irrelevant), and its reload time is 3 seconds. It does 80 damage per shot to a vehicle.

The Volt autorifle is a 100 bullet per clip weapon, with a 10 shots/second RoF (meaning 10 seconds to empty the whole clip), and a 2.27 reload time. It does 400 damage per clip to a vehicle.

Imagine comparing both of these weapons when they are shooting at the same target. Let us use the Stealth tank for example here.

In the first second, the PIC does 80 damage. The Volt does 40 damage.

In the second second, the PIC has still done 80 damage, for it is still reloading. The Volt has then done 80 damage as well.

In the third second (2.99 seconds for the sake of this example), the PIC is just finishing up the reload and has still done 80 damage. The Volt has done 120.

In the fourth second, the PIC has done 160 damage, and the Volt has done 160.

In the fifth second, the PIC has done 160 damage (still reloading), and the Volt has done 200.

In the sixth second (5.99 for the sake of this example), the PIC has done 160 damage, and the volt has done 240.

In the seventh second, the PIC has done 240 damage and the volt has done 280.

In the eighth second, the PIC has done 240 damage (reloading), and the volt has done 320.

In the ninth second (8.99 for the sake of this example), the PIC has done 240 damage and the volt has done 360.

In the tenth second, the PIC has done 320 damage, and the volt has done 400.

The stealth tank is then dead for the volt, but will take another 2 seconds for the PIC to kill it. Imagine, for a second, that the APC was used as the example, though. The Volt would then have to reload for 2.27 seconds, allowing the PIC to essentially almost "catch up."

That's why DPS isn't a calculable measurement for FPS games (for the most part). It all depends on which second you are talking about, because the damage per second is inconsistent.

[Letty]

Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone understands how that works.

The difference between shooting units and shooting buildings is that buildings have enough health that the bumps in the damage graph even out and the higher DPS weapon always pulls ahead (unless the weapons were very, very close in DPS to begin with).

Obviously if you are fighting a soldier with 1 HP you are going to choose a Flamethrower over a PIC, because the PIC single overpowered shot is wasted. But against a building the higher DPS always wins out. Stretch your time graph out to a few thousand more HP (whatever buildings have) and the higher DPS wins, guaranteed.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[HaTe]

You're not understanding...

DPS means Damage Per Second.

The damage per second differs based on which second you are talking about. The calculation you are referring to is how long it will take each weapon to destroy a building. That is an entirely different calculation. Damage Per Second cannot be effectively calculated, unless you are to do it per each second (which is then Damage For a Second, and not Damage Per Second).

For Renegade, this also was highly dependent on which warhead was being used, and which armor/flesh was being hit. It's much more complicated than you think. You're trying to simplify it for a comparison standpoint, but my point is that you cannot do that by creating a false measurement.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

No, I understand what you are saying perfectly fine.

You are saying that HP/weapon DPS != TTK. This is true, but what I'm saying is that the difference is nominal in practice due to the high building health, and that a weapon with higher DPS = weapon with lower TTK a building, which is also true.

The gaps in weapon damage due to reloading have a constant limit, while the gaps between two weapons' damage due to DPS widens with time. Over a short time the former is important, over a long time the latter is important.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[super_gsx]

Awesome chart!!

[HaTe]

Okay, let me ask you this then:

Given my example, what would the "DPS" be against the stealth tank for the PIC and for the Volt auto-rifle?

The point is that there is no "DPS." You can determine which weapon will destroy the entirety of the vehicle quicker, but not the "DPS" for either weapon. The Damage for the first second favors the PIC. The damage in the tenth second favors the Volt. There is no DPS, because it all depends on which second you are focusing on.

[Letty]

Okay, let me ask you this then:

Given my example, what would the "DPS" be against the stealth tank for the PIC and for the Volt auto-rifle?

The point is that there is no "DPS." You can determine which weapon will destroy the entirety of the vehicle quicker, but not the "DPS" for either weapon. The Damage for the first second favors the PIC. The damage in the tenth second favors the Volt. There is no DPS, because it all depends on which second you are focusing on.

DPS stat of a weapon is an *approximation* of the DPS over any given timeframe, and the approximation becomes more and more accurate (relative to the total damage dealt) the greater the time spent shooting. This is not complex stuff here. Over increasingly greater amounts of time DPS of weapons become more and more vital compared to hills and troughs of reloading.

[SFJake]

Its like we're constantly agreeing that no, the numbers are not that important, but just want to put a different spin on it.

Take those numbers with a grain of salt, and then move on to real balance discussions, which is always done through extensive play and not just from numbers.

All numbers do here is give some knowledge (DPS was actually an afterthought, I just thought "hey, why not") and at best gives something to look at and discuss further. Thats all I intended it to do.

This is all giving me a headache and you'll not see me the rest of the night, but don't stop arguing on my account.

[HaTe]

Once again, you are referring to damage for a specific second (in this case, how many seconds it takes to kill a structure/unit), and not damage per second.

You can argue that the PIC does 80 DPS, because in the first second her "DPS" would be 80. In the second second, however, the damage dealt is also 80. Meaning that for the second second, the "DPS" is 40 (80/2). At 2.99 seconds, the "DPS" would be ~27 (80/3). Then at the 3 second mark, the DPS would be ~53 (160 damage dealt / 3 seconds).

Which is why you cannot come up with a "DPS" unless you are doing it for EACH SECOND - which would then be Damage For a Second, and not Damage Per Second.

If you can come up with a set "DPS" for these weapons in this example - please do. My point is that you cannot.

[Letty]

Are you really going to make me draw a graph here? This is simple math stuff that should be learned in middle school.

[HaTe]

You're resorting to insulting when you still haven't given me an answer for the example. If it's that easy - do the calculation. There's no graph needed. If It's DPS - it is one set number (DPS is a rate).

If you need to do a graph listing each individual second - you're completely failing to see my point and would be supporting it even.

[HaTe]

In fact, I even just googled it for purpose of an outside reference. I used Call of Duty to search, since it was the most likely to come up with actual relevant material.

Here:

Time to Kill

Time to Kill, usually abbreviated as TTK, is how long a gun takes to kill an enemy from the time the trigger is pulled until the target is dead. In many role-playing games, players use damage per second, or DPS, to determine a weapon's effectiveness. However, in a shooter such as Call of Duty, where everyone has equal health and firefights are very fast, it is far more beneficial to determine TTK than DPS. To calculate a weapon's TTK, all that is needed are damage values and the delay between shots. For example, a gun that fires at 750 RPM has a delay between shots of .08 seconds. If that gun does 30 damage, it takes four shots to kill. The first shot comes out the instant the trigger is pulled, so the formula for determining a weapon's TTK is d(s-1), where d is the delay between shots and s is the number of shots needed to kill. This means that any weapon that kills in one shot will technically kill in zero seconds flat. Because most weapons lose damage over range, it can be necessary to perform multiple TTK calculations for a single gun. Beware that even a few missed shots will greatly increase a weapon's TTK, so it can be beneficial to plug in different amounts of misses using the formula d(s-1+m), where m is the number of misses. Weapons with low recoil are the most likely to actually reflect TTK with no misses.

It is similar for Renegade and Renegade X (not the same, though). The difference being that Renegade units all have different HP and armor types, and any given warhead differs per that armor type. The point is still the same, however. DPS is irrelevant and immeasurable for a FPS (for the most part). If you want to do TTK, you would have to do it per weapon (by looking at the warhead, damage, RoF, and reload time) to each specific armor type (in Renegade at least - I am not sure what system Renegade X uses, but I would assume similar).

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

You're resorting to insulting when you still haven't given me an answer for the example. If it's that easy - do the calculation. There's no graph needed. If It's DPS - it is one set number (DPS is a rate).

If you need to do a graph listing each individual second - you're completely failing to see my point and would be supporting it even.

Here's the thing. I am a mathematician, and I see your point entirely. You don't see mine. You are literally denying the foundation of statistics in doing so.

Here's a time chart.

What you are saying: That Real D/T != Predicted DPS. This is true.

What I am saying: (D/T)/(DPS) grows smaller as T grows larger. This is also true, and means that the longer a fight goes on, the closer DPS represents the D/T of the weapon performance over the fight.

Please don't try to argue this. This is basic math. I can understand if you misunderstood what I was trying to say, seeing how it's hard to convey mathematical principles over the internet without example, but please don't argue this. If you do it will actually hurt me to see such mathematical ineptness.

[HaTe]

Where is the DPS in this? You're telling me to not argue it because you know that you never included any DPS calculation in the entire thing. Your graph did exactly as I said it would - proved my point. You're not calculating Damage Per Second (Per implies a rate - which is nonexistent in your graph). You're calculating damage for each second - which is exactly what I said.

You're claiming that you're a mathematician and attempting to insult my math knowledge, when literally all you did is repeat exactly what I had already calculated (all you did was stretch it out and create a random percentile calculation).

You just proved my point entirely. The chart the OP made includes a DPS rate for each weapon against each specific armor type. My point was that this "DPS" is irrelevant because it is flawed and inconsistent to measure a DPS for a FPS game.

Your math is spot on - as is mine. Your terminology is what is wrong, and where you are getting confused.

[Letty]

Where is the DPS in this? You're telling me to not argue it because you know that you never included any DPS calculation in the entire thing. Your graph did exactly as I said it would - proved my point. You're not calculating Damage Per Second (Per implies a rate - which is nonexistent in your graph). You're calculating damage for each second - which is exactly what I said.

Expected DPS = 26.67. cmon man. It's your PIC that does an 80 damage shot every 3 seconds.

You're claiming that you're a mathematician and attempting to insult my math knowledge, when literally all you did is repeat exactly what I had already calculated (all you did was stretch it out and create a random percentile calculation).

The percentile isn't random, nitwit. It's the differential between expected DPS and actual DPS on the specific second.

You just proved my point entirely. The chart the OP made includes a DPS rate for each weapon against each specific armor type. My point was that this "DPS" is irrelevant because it is flawed and inconsistent to measure a DPS for a FPS game.

Except that it isn't flawed - assuming your time is great enough. Which for buildings, it is. A DPS statistic is always an approximation. That's what statistics are - approximations. The approximation grows increasingly accurate over time.

Let me just ask you a simple question. You are shooting a building. Do you want a 50 DPS weapon or a 100 DPS weapon? Assume that both are in range and that you have enough ammo to kill the building with both.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[goztow]

This is great work, thanks to the OP!

If I'm correct, the stank has light armour. Look at the DPS a heavy pistol does to light armour. Heavy pistols can tear through stanks like there's no tomorrow, right? It even does the same DPS on heavy armour...

[HaTe]

Where is the DPS in this? You're telling me to not argue it because you know that you never included any DPS calculation in the entire thing. Your graph did exactly as I said it would - proved my point. You're not calculating Damage Per Second (Per implies a rate - which is nonexistent in your graph). You're calculating damage for each second - which is exactly what I said.

Expected DPS = 26.67. cmon man. It's your PIC that does an 80 damage shot every 3 seconds.

You're claiming that you're a mathematician and attempting to insult my math knowledge, when literally all you did is repeat exactly what I had already calculated (all you did was stretch it out and create a random percentile calculation).

The percentile isn't random, nitwit. It's the differential between expected DPS and actual DPS on the specific second.

You just proved my point entirely. The chart the OP made includes a DPS rate for each weapon against each specific armor type. My point was that this "DPS" is irrelevant because it is flawed and inconsistent to measure a DPS for a FPS game.

Except that it isn't flawed - assuming your time is great enough. Which for buildings, it is.

Let me just ask you a simple question. You are shooting a building. Do you want a 50 DPS weapon or a 100 DPS weapon? Assume that both are in range and that you have enough ammo to kill the building with both.

"Expected DPS." Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You're creating an entirely different measurement. You're using "expected" because it is the most consistent result. However, this is still NOT a Real DPS (which is what the OP attempted to create in his chart). By saying "expected," you are stating that one should expect the damage to be 26.67 per second. However, in the first second, the REAL DPS is 80. You've decided to create an entirely different measurement based on the consistency of the results. You're not wrong in doing so - but once again, this is not a REAL DPS, which is what we've been discussing all along. Again, look at the OP's chart. His calculation is attempting to find the Real DPS, but such a thing does not exist in an FPS. It can only be calculated as "expected" because of consistency, however, some vehicles will die much quicker than others. Meaning that this "expected DPS" only exists once per every 3 seconds - which is your benchmark. The "Real DPS" gets close to this the further you go, but in reality, measuring that far for the game isn't even really needed. The fact is that the immediate DPS (let us use 1-13 seconds) is much higher than your "expected DPS" - and that is what will matter the most (the PIC would have done enough damage to kill a Stealth tank at this point).

I said "random" because this "expected DPS" that you were using was not apparent. You have been claiming the Real DPS is easy to calculate - when in reality, it is inconsistent and therefore irrelevant.

As far as buildings go, the damage calculation is different. The warhead does a different amount of damage to the building armor type than it does to the vehicleheavy armor type. Your point for the "Expected DPS" against a building is relevant though - but that is merely just one "Expected DPS" calculation; and the rest are much more immediate - making the "Real DPS" for each individual second vary much more.

As far as your question goes - it depends how long I will be shooting the building for, and which weapon will do the most damage at the end of that timeframe. If I'm shooting it for 3 seconds and the 100 DPS weapon is a 1 shot reload weapon and takes 3 seconds to reload (meaning I've only done 100 damage), yet the 50 DPS weapon does more than that, yet takes a huge amount of time to reload after the 3 seconds, I'll take the 50 DPS weapon. That's my point. It's not a Real DPS.

@goztow; the stank is heavy armor in Renegade (in jelly they moved it down to medium, but by default it is heavy). I would assume the same for Renegade X.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

Your point for the "Expected DPS" against a building is relevant though

OK, stop. This is all I said. Everything else you may have think I said, I did not say. I never talked about shooting stealth tanks, or using an approximate statistic for a short firefight. This is all I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. Expected DPS against buildings is a relevant statistic. DPS is significantly less relevant against vehicles and especially infantry, but it is a very important thing to know when shooting buildings.

We're through here, this has gone far enough.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[HaTe]

Yes, make up a measurement that is not the one discussed in the original argument or the topic at hand, and claim that you were right all along because this measurement is still relevant, even though it was not what was being discussed...

That makes total sense.

Sigh. Should have expected it from a "mathematician" I suppose.

[Letty]

Yes, it's obviously hard to compare DPS vs. infantry directly, and DPS vs. vehicles is still somewhat hard with dodging, or popping out to fire and reload, or w/e.

But DPS is pretty directly comparable for buildings. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 1% DPS each has 20s for the enemy to stop them before the building dies. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 2% DPS each has 10s.

Buildings don't exactly dodge or anything, and there aren't any non-beacon weapons that can one-shot a building and ignore the reload time because the building already died. The only real issue is range, which does disadvantage grenadiers in some situations but in the vast majority the grenadier can still reach the target by arcing.

You'll have to point out how I was talking about shooting Stealth Tanks when I clearly state I'm talking specifically about buildings.

[HaTe]

That's what the OP's chart did (DPS to each specific armor type) and why we were arguing about it in the first place....?

I didn't realize that was where you got lost....wow.

You also never mentioned anything about an "expected DPS" until just now. Which is different than a Real DPS, which is what we were talking about. That's where the facepalm comes in.

[iovandrake]

Tired of the theoretical bs so I ran a test of Gunner vs Rocket Soldier. Target: Hon. Zero misses for either. No return trips refill trips. Using stopwatch to get exact time.

Rocket Soldier

---------------

Total Damage To Building: HON was left at 40% health.

Time: 00:00:44:86

Switched teams inbetween to heal HON back to 100%.

Gunner

---------------

Total Damage To Building: HON was left at 31% health.

Time: 00:01:02:50

Clearly the Rocket Soldier fires through his entire ammo stock faster (once again horrible reload for Gunner was horrible to sit through) but does less overall damage for a single run. Changing Gunner's reload time slightly would fix this without either making Gunner OP or making Rocket Soldier UP. Changing damage for either of them would be a far more drastic step then merely making it so that Gunners reload slightly faster.

[goztow]

I am puzzled as to why the heavy pistol deals the same dps to heavy armor as it doed to light armour.

[rocky44r]

nice chart, thanks. this will help the devs maybe

[Christopher]

took me 10 seconds of playing to realize grenadier was OP.