you initial conclusions are correct, but like you already pointed out, you completely disregarded many factors that play into the overall "effectiveness" of every weapon.
Spoiler!
- perk bonuses would greatly impact every weapon....this includes weight, discounts, recoil reduction, damage increase, quicker reload, ammo cap increase, clip size increase etc....
- you make the assumption that every single bullet will hit the target, which isn't a guarantee.
- you also make an assumption when taking the average base damage to determine these statistics.....the base damage ranges due to the possible locations of hits on the targets which would result in varied amounts of damage dealt.
- you draw the conclusion that TDC (total damage capacity) is the ultimate sign of which weapon is the most powerful or effective. what about the other statistic you presented CDC (clip damage capacity)? note that the M14EBR is in the bottom half of that category......also note, you left a few weapons out such as the m32 which would have a CDC of 2100 (6x350) which would only 50 less than the EBR
- something you really need to remember is that TDC is only theoretical as you're assuming that every single bullet will be used, i.e. just because it's a maximum doesn't mean that maximum will consistantly be acheived. take for instance the M14EBR......you're assuming players will use (let alone hit with) all 300 bullets while in an average game, i'd suggest that realistically speaking, even the worst "EBR spammer" will only use 50-75% of his ammo whereas most every support will use up his AA12 or Shotgun ammo.
- along with the above point, during a 6 player suicidal game the team will face a max of around 300 zeds per wave and only in later waves. again it's the assumption that all bullets will be used and all bullets will be hits.
- also a factor is the full loadout of a perk....example being the support who could carry AA12, Shotgun, dual handcannons, 10 grenades, 2 pipebombs (i believe) and a 9mm. when all that "potential" damage is totaled compared to the potential total of a SS carrying an EBR/LAR combo, the statistics change. again the need to factor in perk bonuses which would greatly affect the numbers.
- TDC isn't the same thing as "effectiveness".....i.e. total potential damage isn't the conclusive stat for determining a weapons "power". example, the crossbow: its TDC is only 12000 and following to your stats, you have to not include headshot multipliers etc... however even 1 bodyshot from a Crossbow can result in a kill on most every specimen, even multiple kills while say a bullet from the AK47 (also 12000 TDC) can't even kill just one specimen. additionally a single crossbow headshot could result in the death of a FP which would take how many mags of AK47 ammo? point being, TDC isn't even equivilant to the amount of potential deaths that could be inflicted by each weapon.
- one last little point would be the failure to note the roles of each invidual perk and the effects of the weapon used to fill those roles. example, a "mop up" perk like the commando will "spam" 5-10x more bullets than say a demo who would save his shots for larger groups of zeds. a firebug would conserve his ammo by lighting a group on fire, letting the fire damage take its full effect before shooting another "round" as opposed to shooting a continuous spray.
so in the end, i think your research is nice and provides good insight into this specific aspect of the weapons, but the analysis is too simple, too many assumptions are mande and too many factors are left out to validate just how much of an impact the presented idea (ammo reduction) will have at "fixing" the foundamental "problem" with the m14EBR.
*to note, i do believe that the general consensus of most players is that weapons like the SCAR and M14EBR could use a slight ammo reduction. keep in mind the commando does have perk bonuses that effect clip sizes and in turn total bullets. however, remember that the TDC is not the only factor needed to be taken into consideration regarding the actual "EBR issue".
despite my constructive criticism, i totally respect the research and thought that you put into all this. most people these days just make statements/conclusions without attempting to research or provide any support for them. for that i give your post a "like"
Well I would make a few notes about your comments.
*On the perks: I consider the perk bonuses to weapons to be roughly equal among the perks. Obviously not accurate, but the point is that the TDC isn't going to be vastly higher for one perk than another because of bonuses (Excluding the Medic gun). Though this is besides the point, as I am only comparing the weapons themselves, and not the perks that use them. The goal of the analysis was to show that the M14 (and to a lesser extent the SCAR) is significantly more powerful from a potential damage perspective than the other weapons.
*I made the comment that the reason I assume all bullets hit is because if you factor in a given miss rate, you can't really justify making it a different miss rate for different perks. This means that if you had 50% missed shots, you would halve the resulting calculations for all weapons. While this affects the actual TDC etc., it does not affect the comparison between weapons (though the standard deviation will change in a slightly different way).
*Since I assumed no headshots, there's no justification for assuming that there will be any particularly prevalent damage locations on targets (though I'm under the impression that it is a random number generator, not the location, that determines damage). Assuming that the damage is random and *not* based on location (besides headshots), the weapon's expected damage will just be the average damage.
*You may wish to recheck the spreadsheet, as the M14 is in no way the lower half of total clip damage (it's second highest). And the M32 is left out because the damage depends on the number of targets and their distance from the shot. Combine that with the fact that it simply would not add anything significant to the analysis (TDC of 12600 assuming one target takes full damage, ignoring the notable overkill present on lesser specimen kills and the almost certainty that full damage will not occur), and it was omitted. On the TDC being the most important factor, I do not consider it a determining factor for overall perk effectiveness, only as a baseline to show that in similar circumstances the M14 is very likely to outlast other weapons.
*Just accounting for your point, but this is covered above by the disregard for a percentage chance to hit, which adds nothing to the comparative analysis.
*It's about potential on an even scale. I'm not going to try to define team dynamics (how a team plays vastly affects who uses how much ammo), which renders the actual number of enemies fought only a factor if you consider the special case of the entire wave having a collective hit pool lower than any given weapon (not reasonable).
*Again, I'm not looking at perks, only the weapons themselves. The perk bonuses are very similar, and while they all play differently there is still some required balancing of the weapons themselves, which is what this thread is about.
*The crossbow is universally a unique weapon given the grossly oversized headshot multiplier. It would only be an outlier if I included it, and the comparison is focused on weapons of similar function (i.e. usability on all specimens without significant loss of efficiency). Any of the weapons analyzed could conceivably be used to kill any specimen (again excluding the MP7).
*You're assuming gameplay, which is far and beyond even a more dynamic analysis. On the most basic level, a zed has a given pool of health, and you have a given pool of damage. You will expend (very) roughly the equivalent amount of damage to kill the zed regardless of how exactly you're playing. Assuming ten seconds of burning and two SCAR rounds did the same damage, both would kill the same specimen. Since time is omitted, comparison of these weapons does not hinge on how exactly the weapons are used, only on how they *at most* could be used (and then, only for comparison purposes).
Overall I think your three concerns are lack of considerations for accuracy, gameplay, and the disregard for perk bonuses. I encourage everyone to remember that I am comparing only the weapons, not the perks. Reducing the ammo size on the weapon does not affect gameplay at the perk level, it only affects the potential use a given weapon has. Put another way, fixing the M14 isn't the same as fixing the perk tied to it.
I would note that the Commando does not in fact get an increase in total ammunition, only in clip size (verifiable in game, and makes sense comparing the wording from Commando to Support Specialist, which does actually get a total ammo increase). I won't claim that the TDC is the only factor needed to justify an ammo decrease, but I firmly believe it is the most readily available and important justification.
My apologies for sort of breaking your post down, but I don't want people to get confused and think that I've made a dynamic model of the game that proves that the Sharpshooter is God and the Medic is Jesus.
