How exactly does penetration work? Like, if say the kubel had exactly 4 armor and riflemen had exactly one penetration (disregarding range for examples sake) does that mean the rifles have a 1 in 4 chance of penning it? And if a t34/85 (totally making stuff up for examples sake again) had 150 pen and shot at a tank with 200 armor, does that mean it has a 3 in 4 chance of penning?
Yes, penetration chance is penetration / armor. Results below 3% are ignored, in so far as that matters.
How are tanks' shots vs infantry calculated? Does RA of the infantry and range of engagement matter? Also, are moving penalties for vs. inf the same as vs. tanks (as in does the Cromwell also have 50% accuracy/scatter whatever it is vs. infantry on the move)?
Most main guns (exceptions: Luchs, flak HT, Centaur...) will have a <5% chance of hitting while still at point blank, so they're mostly relying on scatter to hit infantry. Infantry RA will not matter at all for scatter, it's determined entirely by range and terrain (standing in front of cover is an easy way to get hit, being on top of a hill is an easy way of avoiding getting hit, etc). The vehicle moving will matter too, but how much it matters depends on a lot of factors.
Do flamethrower tanks have any differences in flamethrower performance in terms of range and whether or not it's moving?
Every flamethrower weapon in the game performs exactly the same at all ranges it can fire in. Moving will reduce accuracy by 50% (exception: flammenwerfer has no penalty right now, one of the two churchill flamers has no penalty), which will reduce damage against target by something less than 50% because the AOE can still hit and the damage over time effects can also land on top of the target regardless.
Is there something wrong with the bazooka? Because I think I remember hearing it won't inflict death crits or something (no idea how that works) and I have seen tanks escape with tiny slivers of health when they shouldn't have. If so, is it going to get fixed in the FBP?
There's currently "something wrong" with every single infantry held AT. WBP people wanted to reduce amount of exp gained by infantry anti-tank, so they split damage on those weapons to 33% regular and 66% magic damage that doesn't count for veterancy. Unfortunately that magic damage won't currently actually kill a unit, so if a vehicle has more than the regular damage worth of health left the vehicle will survive with 0hp. |
|
Man that's some indepth analysis on their financial reports. To be able to tell how much is spent on a single game despite them only reporting the entirety of their development on all consumer and arcade games is amazing.
BTW. Numbers in that report are in million yen, so that RD budget for 2016 listed as 39,222 = 39.2 billion yen = around 350 million USD. |
He didn't get extra leeway, he got penalised with a loss, but was given map selection because he was clearly winning. It wasn't the best solution as discussed above. But in the rules of this tournament there is an allowance for bugsplats that requires the refs to look at the situation at hand, and make a judgement call. We would have given DevM the win outright based on that.
I agree with what you're saying a little bit here Cruzz, however you're basing it on the assumption that DevM is being negligent in some way, he could have just been very unlucky. We just don't know. What we do know is that CoH2 can bugsplat, and it has happened to the best of us. Hell it once happened to Relic themselves on stream.
I agree that there probably isn't anything DevM could do to fix his issues with any reasonable amount of effort. That doesn't excuse his attitude about the whole thing.
I do not think Von was winning that series no matter what you decided at that point. I do find it somewhat concerning that you seem so willing to hand a player the win outright without the other player conceding to it, even if you ended up giving him the loss as has been the custom in most(all?) tourneys so far (but with a cherry of an extra pick on top). |
|
Something is wrong with DevM's PC, and he's being arrogant as hell about it in that chat. He's crashed twice now in just this tourney, nobody else has and speaking from personal experience crashes with a freshly restarted instance of coh2 after the first 30 seconds of starting the game are practically non-existent. It has probably happened once or twice for me, in 4 years and over god knows how many games.
I don't see how getting extra leeway for what should've just been either a rematch or a regular loss with VP lead for G5 is showing "honor". |
Worked in Chrome, didn't change in Firefox. Thanks for update. Is there any way to show at one graph e.g. obersoldaten's MG34 and riflemen's 1919?
Apparently if you have a Button (I'm using it purely for aesthetic reasons) with an onclick event, any kind of link inside that button will not function in Firefox or IE but it will function in Chrome. Was only testing in Chrome because it's the only thing I personally use, but as usual that was a mistake.
Edit: just changed the button to a div for now and it functions in both chrome and IE(don't have ff to test on for now), but now the graph does change every time you open and close up the accordions so it's kinda spastic to use. Will need to figure out something a bit more user friendly. |
Got a bit less lazy for a change and am working on an update on the calculator page. Shamelessly copying parts of the layout from the coh2-stats.com site that hasn't been updated in years.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
Same thing as before, save and load in your browser.
Clicking on the grey boxes displays all the stats I actually have in the file for weapons
Clicking on weapon name changes what the graph is displaying, shows clicked weapon and whatever the last weapon was if they're comparable (plus Tiger as reference for ballistic weapons).
Clicking same weapon twice will display it with its moving dps graphed, if applicable.
Clicking on the entity names (like grenadier_mp) will set them as the target, default setting is pioneer (1 armor, 1 target size).
Target type tables aren't taken into account in any calculation, but are now displayed in the weapon stats
Stats displayed aren't modified by cover setting or target setting being used for the graph for now. Not that there really is anything more to cover modifiers than multiplying accuracy and damage by the two numbers shown in the cover table entries.
A veterancy level not having a weapon entry below it means that either the veterancy level doesn't affect any weapons, or I've failed at parsing whatever effect it has. |
I'm a bit lazy >.> Could you provide matchup-oriented stats, thx!
Ost Sov Ost USF Ost Brits OKW Sov OKW USF OKW Brits
Wins 3 5 2 11 9 5
Losses 2 5 3 4 8 5
Axis Win % 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 73,3% 52,9% 50,0%
|
Korean army doubled the Soviet winrate by wining all four of his matches including both as Soviets, at least until your sorting method is applied. Then Soviets back to being on life support.
Him winning as soviets won't matter at all, because he won both games. I was just running the numbers on games where both players won one game, because otherwise I'd have to actually look at every single player involved and decide whether the skill gap was too high to include the games.
That said, the new games did improve stats for allies anyway as every single one of the newest 10 games was won by allies.
Ost OKW Soviets USF Brits
Count 20 42 20 27 15
Wins: 10 25 6 13 8
Losses: 10 17 14 14 7
Win % 50,0% 59,5% 30,0% 48,1% 53,3%
|
So if you take the games where both players won a game (so as to ignore matchups that might have been determined purely by skill gap), the win rates for factions are, assuming I didn't enter anything wrong:
Ost OKW Soviets USF Brits
Count 15 37 17 25 10
Wins: 10 25 3 11 3
Losses: 5 12 14 14 7
Win % 66,7% 67,6% 17,6% 44,0% 30,0%
Soviets looking pretty good there. Brits not too shabby either. |
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess your DPS calculator is based on the the first firing cycle after acquiring a target. I should probably tweak the equation a bit to account for a prolonged combat setup. But anyway, this does not seem to matter too much for small arms after all where a unit's DPS matters most.
Yeah, I just did a very simple calculation when I was starting out making it, and ended up never changing. Like you said it generally doesn't really matter for small arms, but it would help to do like an average from 5 shots or whatever for ballistic weapon fire cycle times...
Nice work Cruzz! Really good information. A couple of questions: does the .9 RA modifier on tommies and commandos still apply when the attacker is under 10 meters? Also, does the ~40% better nature of brens on commandos mean that they are only about 10% less effective than brens on infantry sections when the commandos are on the move? (this ones more for just lulz if it's true)
Yes, the bonus will apply because it's not a cover bonus, it's a conditional bonus that just checks you're in cover. It also applies even when you're not actually getting cover due to getting flanked, it's just checking that you are next to cover in some direction.
Commando Bren on the move is 80% as effective as section Brens are in cover and 90% as effective as they are out of cover, so you're pretty much right. |
Finland
cruzz
SturmTigerGaddafi
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
