Profile of MMX

Think this will explain it easier.

https://www.coh2.org/file/10620/scatter-model2.jpg

but yes as far as I know distance scatter offset work as you describe.

thanks a lot, this looks pretty much like the scatter area i calculate (basically a pie slice with the outer bounds defined by angle_scatter, twice the distance_scatter_ratio times distance or distance_scatter_max, whichever is smaller and finally offset from center by distance_scatter_offset).

Are you using the in-game (bugged) values or the theoretical(intended) values published in the patch notes?

I am also pretty sure these stats don't say much about the actual in-game performance because it doesn't take into account cover, elevation, world objects etc.

The KT, for example, is very unreliable in the live game when there is even a hint of elevation or possible world objects that can block the shot. Its shots are often way off-target because of it.

I guess it's because the balance team (forgot) to adjust the distance_scatter_offset when they changed overall scatter values? I don't know what this value does but it could be an explanation for how the KT gun works.

yes the results use the values found in the attributes.xml, that is the (bugged) live AOE profiles, together with those reconstructed from the changelog for the old values. i plan to do a comparison with the intended AOE profiles vs. the live ones and see how that would shuffle things around.

regarding the correlation of the test results with the actual in-game behavior you are of course right to point out that a lot of other variables (elevation probably being the worst contender here) factor into the overall outcome that are not modeled by this simulation. still, i believe there's at least some value to be found in the results since these tests provide a comparably large dataset obtained under defined and equal conditions.

lastly, i don't think distance_scatter_offset is the reason for the KT's alleged tendency to overshoot. while it is different from the usual value for most tanks (0.185 vs 0.25), the IS-2 has the same offset and seems to work fine.

alright,

as all of you know, heavy and superheavy tanks received a pretty decent boost to their anti-infantry performance with the most recent changes to their respective scatter values and AOE profiles. and while the impact of these changes is quite heavily debated among the community, comparisons between old and new AI performance, as well as the AI capability of the individual tanks seems to be mostly based on anecdotal evidence due to the lack of somewhat reliable data.

hence, i've tried to generate some actual numbers that would hopefully give a bit of a clearer picture of the overall performance of heavies pre- and post patch, and might also give some indication where some adjustments could be made.

however, since in-game testing to generate a sufficiently large sample size would literally take centuries and precise calculations taking scatter and AOE values into account turned out to be quite a bit more complex than what i am capable of doing (without any programming knowledge and thus relying on excel to do the heavy lifting), i've decided to conduct a numerical simulation to approximate the actual in-game behavior of a tank firing at a 6-man, full-health squad until all entities are killed.

with that out of the way, here's what i did so far:

Show Spoiler


probability of killing 6 80-hp entities as function of fired shots, d = 40 m


probability of killing 6 80-hp entities as function of time, d = 40 m


average number of shots to kill 6 80-hp entities at range 10, 20 and 40


average time to kill 6 80-hp entities at range 10, 20 and 40

as you can see, the average number of shots it takes to kill a full-health 6 man squad at a distance of 40 m decreased significantly, mainly due to the substantial reduction of scatter. also, the tiger seems to have benefited the most from these changes, cutting the number of required shots / time by roughly 1/3 (~1/4 for KT and ~1/5 for IS2 and Pershing, respectively) and now being almost as lethal as the Pershing. together with the more reliable damage delivery this leaves heavy tanks in a very good (too good perhaps?) spot. what do you guys think?

--UPDATE--

as pointed out earlier in this thread by blvckdream, some of the AOE profiles currently in the live game seem to differ more or less drastically from the intended values given in the patchnotes (SEPTEMBER 2019 BALANCE UPDATE and onwards). a lot of people have thus suggested these discrepancies to be responsible for the surprisingly high lethality of certain heavies, in particular the tiger. so let's see what all the fuss is about.

assuming the stats extracted from the attributes.xml represent the live values it seems that:

1) Tiger I AOE (n/m/f) is 1/1.5/3 instead of the intended 0.25/1.5/3
2) Pershing AOE damage (n/m/f) is 1/0.4/0.175 instead of 0.75/0.375/0.175
3) IS-2 AOE (n/m/f) is currently 0.25/1.35/3 instead of 0.25/1/3.

now the question is, will fixing these presumably bugged stats change anything in terms of AI performance and, if yes, by how much? here's what the numbers indicate:


probability vs fired shots for live and patchnote AOE profiles, d = 40 m


probability vs time for live and patchnote AOE profiles, d = 40 m

while a marginal decrease in performance for all three tanks would indeed be expected by changing the AOE profiles to their intended values, the actual reduction in S2K or T2K would likely only be about 2-3%... in other words: barely noticeable. so unless there are some other bugs hiding in the code that are about to get ironed out, i'd rather doubt hotfixing the numbers above will do enough to please the crowd hoping for a significant performance decrease of heavy tank AI capabilities.

If their is indeed an increased snare range for Riflemen in the veterancy then please remove it because this doesn't seem intentional to me when even the newly upgraded veterancy guide doesn't mention it.

maybe you feeling the range increase (that has been there probably from day one) is somehow unintentional because it isn't mentioned in the veterancy guide just doesn't cut it as the sole reason to remove it. maybe, since there have been literally zero complaints about rifle snares being somehow op or game breaking and the range increase being further gated behind vet3, it could just stay as it is. just sayin'...

And they can also cap.

The idea of a healing squad is probable problematic just use base medic and adjust they speed as seen fit.

don't really see how capping is an issue, though, as you could do the same with USF medics and they don't have any combat value to speak of. with the added micro tax involved, i think it's fair medics have some utility outside healing.

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

i think this is the best solution brought up so far, because you can adjust the timing for each heavy individually by both the price of the upgrade and duration it takes to complete the final tech.

i'd also advocate against nerfs in the performance department except fixing the (maybe?) bugged scatter of the tiger. heavies should pack a punch against all targets and i'm glad they finally do across the board.
this, however, doesn't mean they aren't currently overperforming, but there are a couple of other areas that could be used to tone down their impact to reasonable levels.

1) the price could be adjusted to better match the performance, say, by increasing fuel costs by 15-20%.

2) repair times could go up by tweaking hp values and received damage modifiers accordingly. this would keep the overall durability unchanged, but reduce the field presence of heavies noticably unless you invest in an army of pios/engineers to compensate.