Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

Are you serious?

yes, and whether you like it or not it's the truth. It's not perfect, no, but it's close. and infinitely more so than whining saying "OMG THE BROKEN" with nothing but opinion to back that statement up.

You want to refute me, use your own math. Come up with something to prove me wrong other than simply whining. Or can you not do math?

I am sure I have misunderstood something here, so I am trying to get some clarification.

Have you or have you not assigned a point value to various rules such as Feel No Pain, ATSKNF, being a Monstrous Creature and Fleet?



As an aside, look back through the thread.....I have not been whining at all. In fact I haven't even posted in this thread before I started questioning the spreadsheet.
...

Phazael wrote:

It's hard to really point to another example of a troop unit from one army nerfing another army.

Strakenblob vs Nids and just about any assault army
Ravenwing Hamminators vs lots of armies
Nob Bikers vs Tau and Vanilla SM
Grey Hunters vs the entire known universe

Well, technically strakenblob requires the addition of a special character HQ choice.
Grey Hunters and Deathwing are very good for their points, but don't prevent the enemy from deploying, or otherwise preventing any possible damage
Nob Bikers vs. Tau I'll give you. Hammernators eat nobs of any flavor though..

Honestly, I don't know about other GK players, but I never even include Strikes (much less the FA ones) unless I am trying to make my army _weaker_ for casual play. Its just pure irony that it happens to bone Daemons harder. Its kind of sad, but the baseline mechanics of Daemons are so off the grid anyhow that its really not worth honing in on. Really, all they would have to do to fix the issue is say "Daemons deploy normally when facing grey knights" to represent daemon world invasions and the problem would be solved.

I agree with this. OTOH, a skilled daemon player shouldn't lose to a mediocre GK player that happened to include a strike squad. That doesn't seem quite fair. I think that in practice it's not a big deal, but it's a really crappy situation.

Fortitude they dropped the ball on. It should have been non-psychic and worked exactly like living metal. The issue it has now is, its priced under the assumption that the enemy always has some form of psychic defense, for which that cost is fair. But not all armies do, either by choice or lack of an option. So either its completely broken (vs Guard, Orks, Tau, ect), on target (vs anyone with a hood, esp SW), or a big game of pray you don't make things worse (eldar).

That's a good assessment. I'd argue that it's a good buy even against most psychic defense (especially on ranged vehicles that can avoid modern hoods), but your point is well taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phazael wrote:And if your friends who you play casual with keep bringing the beatface army.... how are they not being tools? Letting casual games dictate gamebalance is like a barrito before sex; a recipe for total disaster. Casual players often can (and should) disregard rules and limitations on a whim in favor of doing something fun with their friends, so its impossible to even begin to balance around that. Tournament play, where all the gloves are off and everyone is playing by the rules closely, is the best place to adjust things and the only chance to see people apply theoryhammer in a controlled environment.

While I agree... you're basically saying that instead of GW not releaseing poorly though out rules that bone some armies, gamers should show insight, social grace, and consideration.

The other problem is that against most armies, strike squads are a fluffy, friendly choice. But not against daemons...

Have you or have you not assigned a point value to various rules such as Feel No Pain, ATSKNF, being a Monstrous Creature and Fleet?

FNP is a modifier to survivability so it gets calculated in with everything, it's not a solid point cost
ATSKNF not yet, but it is a work in progress, but again LD had little effect on costs, a point or two at most until you get to something like ogryns
Monstrous creature- yes, it's worked out like melta and FNP calculated in the damage (might have to check, it was the last thing added in, you might have to add power weapon for it)
Fleet affects the "turns till CC" which affects how many average turns of close combat you can potentially have so fleet on a bad CC unit won't do much, but put it on a great unit and suddenly its much more costly

As an aside, look back through the thread.....I have not been whining at all. In fact I haven't even posted in this thread before I started questioning the spreadsheet.

not really talking about you in particular, but the others who are randomly saying GK are undercosted. When if you actually evaluate them and take everything into account they aren't that undercosted by a whole lot.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Have you or have you not assigned a point value to various rules such as Feel No Pain, ATSKNF, being a Monstrous Creature and Fleet?

FNP is a modifier to survivability so it gets calculated in with everything, it's not a solid point cost
ATSKNF not yet, but it is a work in progress, but again LD had little effect on costs, a point or two at most until you get to something like ogryns
Monstrous creature- yes, it's worked out like melta and FNP calculated in the damage (might have to check, it was the last thing added in, you might have to add power weapon for it)
Fleet affects the "turns till CC" which affects how many average turns of close combat you can potentially have so fleet on a bad CC unit won't do much, but put it on a great unit and suddenly its much more costly

So am I to understand that as a "yes"? You have assigned point values to various rules?

ATSKNF isn't a leadership bump though... it's an insurance policy against sweeping advance, and also allows for more frequent regrouping. To hand wave away the value of it is worrying.

They do affect cost, yes. But not the same for every unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:ATSKNF isn't a leadership bump though... it's an insurance policy against sweeping advance, and also allows for more frequent regrouping. To hand wave away the value of it is worrying.

when the chance of failure is 16% or the effect afterward (remember it only comes into effect after you are below 50%, meaning your going to have maybe 3 marines) it's really not. Again, lets see you do better.


The bottom line is when you say anything is over/undercosted, you need to back up your statement with something more than opinions. Because if it were up to me, guardsmen would be 3 points. I think that's a fair cost.

gendoikari87 wrote:They do affect cost, yes. But not the same for every unit.

I certainly acknowledge that you have adjusted the value for various factors. I think this is a very important issue and I respect you for having taken into consideration that the value of a given rule sometimes depends of the unit to which the rule is assigned.

I am more concerned with how you have come to the values in the first place.
I am sure you have chosen values that you feel correctly represents the weight of the rules in question.
I am also equally sure that you have realized that not everybody agrees with the some of the values, such as the value of ATSKNF.

So the value chosen by you is an expression of your opinion. There is no source of information about how GW assigns point values for various rules. In fact, it has been stated by GW that they do not follow a rigid value-structure, but run more along the lines of "what feels right".

That is why I stated that the otherwise excellent and adjusted spreadsheet was an expression of your opinion, and couldn't be presented as Facts or The Truth.
The calculations themselves are completely correct, I am sure. But the values are (pardon me for being overly blunt) made up by you.

Steelmage99 wrote:
The calculations themselves are completely correct, I am sure. But the values are (pardon me for being overly blunt) made up by you.

Aye, this is the crux of the issue, I'm sure the math itself may say one thing. The values plugged into the equations however to represent various special rules however are likely subjective and thus the resultant output of the equations is a reflection of subjective valuation, not necessarily a true reflection of a units actual worth. The oddly low values for armor save ignoring abilities, the huge cost increase allocated to Assault weaponry, the fact that WS and Init 5 through 10 are all costed identically, etc all stand as fairly solid examples of this.

it's not an expression of opinion it's a cost reclamation V space marines, the arguably standard unit in the game.

The reason it's not an "Opinion" is that it's designed so that in a stand up fight each unit is capable of destroying an equal amount of points of the other. This is so you don't have situations where one unit can make up twice it's points on average, essentially meaning you've added that many extra points to your army than the other player. so, not it's not opinion, it's math, based on relative effectiveness.


So to say it is subjective, is factually incorrect.

gendoikari87 wrote:it's not an expression of opinion it's a cost reclamation V space marines, the arguably standard unit in the game.

That may be, but if you aren't taking into account that Init10 is worth more than Init 5, it's not displaying accurate points costs either.

The reason it's not an "Opinion" is that it's designed so that in a stand up fight each unit is capable of destroying an equal amount of points of the other.

ATSKNF removes and avenue for which an opponent do destroy a Space Marine unit, without accounting for this (and in combat, that 1/6 chance to fail becomes rapidly larger with even small negatives) you aren't accurately modeling their value.

This is so you don't have situations where one unit can make up twice it's points on average, essentially meaning you've added that many extra points to your army than the other player. so, not it's not opinion, it's math, based on relative effectiveness.

And a huge subjective costing for abilities, again, such as powerweapons relative to assault 2 bolters over basic rapid fire bolters. There's no reason why the assault 2 over rapid fire should be worth noticeably more than powerweapons.

So to say it is subjective, is factually incorrect.

No, because there are factors in there which you have chosen to factor in a certain way, or not at all. That, in and of itself, is, by definition, subjective.

gendoikari87 wrote:it's not an expression of opinion it's a cost reclamation V space marines, the arguably standard unit in the game.

Can you please elaborate on how that process worked?

Can you please elaborate on how that process worked?

Sure, I can try to give a condense version. There are Four core principals. The first two are Shooting survival, and Shooting damage. Shooting survival is actually how many models die to a marine fire or rather A marines fire. Shooting damage is just the opposite, how many marines do you kill with shooting. Then you have close combat which does take into account who hits first. That's why the equation for that particular Section is several lines long, it's absurdly complicated, and I had to go back and basically write it twice to avoid a loop.

From there have seven sections for calculation. Shooting survival ratio (ratio with the standard score for a marine), Shooting damage ratio, CC Survival, CC damage, Point reclamation (will elaborate in a minute), and vehicle damage potential.

Point reclamation is taken using six turns (this is maximum potential so it does not take into account survivability) and in itself is two parts, the first assuming the unit does nothing but try to shoot, and the other CC. Range affects how many turns you get to shoot. for simplicity sake it was assumed range 24" gets 6 turns and the rest depends on how fast the unit moves so for a jump infantry with 18" range they also get a full 6 turns. The same is done with CC. These are averaged together and all points are then averaged and the point reclamation from vehicle destruction is added to the final overall point value. Internal codex balance has to be done after this, so you can say the calculator is a starting point, which is what it is intended to be.

But that's the condensed version. You can look at it yourself and see how it works. It is by no means perfect, but it's fairly good and gets fairly close to 5th edition costs. *coughitalsogivesevidenceforcodexcreepcough*

That may be, but if you aren't taking into account that Init10 is worth more than Init 5, it's not displaying accurate points costs either.

Like I said it's not perfect, but for most units it's good enough.

And a huge subjective costing for abilities, again, such as powerweapons relative to assault 2 bolters over basic rapid fire bolters. There's no reason why the assault 2 over rapid fire should be worth noticeably more than powerweapons.

That's your opinion, math says otherwise.

gendoikari87 wrote:

There's no reason why the assault 2 over rapid fire should be worth noticeably more than powerweapons.

That's your opinion, math says otherwise.

Really?

Ok. Both have to roll to hit. Both have to roll to wound. Invulnerable saves apply to both.

COVER saves apply to ranged attacks. Ranged attacks have an AP value which means armour saves may still apply where no armour save ever applies to a power weapon. FNP can apply to some ranged attacks but never to a power weapon.

In addition BS remains a constant value where WS can fluctuate for the purposes of rolling ToHit (3+, 4+, 5+ depending on values).

If anything that points to the Power Weapon being worth significantly more as there's 2 more variables in favour of the target's survival than against a power weapon.

@ Polonius

You have to understand that 1 point does not equal 1 point. 1 point of melee specialist is worth more than 1 point of shooty specialist if the unit makes it into melee. If the melee unit can maximize melee time it will be worth more than the shooty unit. That's what people too often ignore or don't understand. You can take that a step further and say 1 point of GK fortituded vehicle does not equal 1 point of SM vehicle, because of how they are used in context of the army.

I guess you "can" compare unit to unit. My point has always been it gets you nowhere meaningful. So what GK Strike squads are better than tac marines? That doesn't help us determine if GK are overpowered. What if XYZ SM unit is also overpowered? Then the two armies might be balanced. Well, extrapolate that a bunch of steps out and you're now comparing army to army, which is what I said in the first place.

Simply put... If you want to effectively convince people that GK are an overpowered book, show that the GK ARMY is overpowered relative to other ARMIES.

On one hand I'd say the only problem with crying OP as though it's an intentional and predictably evil act by GW is that the GW games developers are only human. Trying to balance around 11-12 armies is akin to balancing spinning plates. But jumping immediately back to the first hand, someone should have looked at Warp Quake (other that the writer, writers in any field rarely recognise a mistake they've made) and thought 'won't this unfairly screws with Daemon players? Maybe we should reduce the range or just remove it in favour of some augmentative power like X amount of re-rolls with a successful physic test'.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

There's no reason why the assault 2 over rapid fire should be worth noticeably more than powerweapons.

That's your opinion, math says otherwise.

Really?

Ok. Both have to roll to hit. Both have to roll to wound. Invulnerable saves apply to both.

COVER saves apply to ranged attacks. Ranged attacks have an AP value which means armour saves may still apply where no armour save ever applies to a power weapon. FNP can apply to some ranged attacks but never to a power weapon.

In addition BS remains a constant value where WS can fluctuate for the purposes of rolling ToHit (3+, 4+, 5+ depending on values).

If anything that points to the Power Weapon being worth significantly more as there's 2 more variables in favour of the target's survival than against a power weapon.

If everything was a terminator you would be correct, however there are guardsmen, and orks. against orks power weapons are obviously useless, ore near useless.

What you have forgotten is that with an assault 2 weapon, you have effectively added 2 attacks to your model, at initiative 11. This is accounted for in the codex.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Point reclamation is taken using six turns (this is maximum potential so it does not take into account survivability) and in itself is two parts, the first assuming the unit does nothing but try to shoot, and the other CC. Range affects how many turns you get to shoot. for simplicity sake it was assumed range 24" gets 6 turns and the rest depends on how fast the unit moves so for a jump infantry with 18" range they also get a full 6 turns. The same is done with CC. These are averaged together and all points are then averaged and the point reclamation from vehicle destruction is added to the final overall point value.

Pretty much all of these are subjectively determined. Any time you use the word "assumed", that, by definition, is a subjective entity. Additionally, how exactly is CC reclamation against vehicles determined...?

That's your opinion, math says otherwise.

I think that opinion would be shared by the overwhelmingly vast majority of gamers and is reflected in GW's own costing where Power Weapons are generally not 2pt upgrades but rather usually double-digit upgrades, whereas, in the few situations where it's possible, upgrades to Storm Bolters over normal Bolters are rather cheap, usually 2-3pts more over bolters and in most cases even then still typically not considered worth taking.

Are you honestly going to claim with a straight face that a WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 3+sv unit sporting an S4 24" range gun and frag/krak grenades should really go from 13.45pts per your calculations to 19.41pts by changing from Rapid Fire to Assault 2.

For basically the same cost using your model, ~6pts using the profile above, going from an S4 24" Rapid Fire weapon to an S4 24" Assault 2 weapon is worth just as much as gaining +1A and a Powerweapon.


Methinks I'm not the only one who's going to find that equivalency laughable, and fewer still who would say that's totally worth it.

As much as you don't want to hear it, will deny it, and will argue about it, there's something in your equations where it's overvaluing Assault shooting weapons.

Answer me this, in what situation would *you* pay 6ppm for Storm Bolters over basic Bolters on a 13.5pt model with the above profile? How often would you take powerweapons and an extra attack on an entire squad for 6ppm on the same unit? If you could only take one of those options, which one would you take? What would most people see as the optimal upgrade?

Gendoikari... I like the effort, but your calculator is flawed.

Example: frag grenades are costed the same on every guy. Shouldn't the cost change depending on if the guy has a power weapon ? or if he is base initiative 2? or base initiative 10? Or on a guy with a heavy weapon who will likely never see combat?

I only looked at the calculator fast, so if you actually addressed those points, then please let me know, but it looked like frag grenades were a hard code.

So what do people get for "winning" this thread? It doesn't seem to be doing any good or be convincing anyone of anything.

Draigo wrote:So what do people get for "winning" this thread? It doesn't seem to be doing any good or be convincing anyone of anything.

For an internet discussion board, there seems to be a lot of complaints about people having discussions...

Leenus wrote:Gendoikari... I like the effort, but your calculator is flawed.

Example: frag grenades are costed the same on every guy. Shouldn't the cost change depending on if the guy has a power weapon ? or if he is base initiative 2? or base initiative 10? Or on a guy with a heavy weapon who will likely never see combat?

I only looked at the calculator fast, so if you actually addressed those points, then please let me know, but it looked like frag grenades were a hard code.

frag grenades were changed to do that, or something like it, but it was one of the last things I did. I'll have to check it to make sure it's the correct version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nope still in it's early 1 point IF your Initiative is higher than or equal to marines. Damn it. I don't feel like navagating the CC damage/survival equation again, after I got it right.

gendoikari87 wrote:If everything was a terminator you would be correct, however there are guardsmen, and orks. against orks power weapons are obviously useless, ore near useless.

Except you don't use a guardsmen or an ork as your measuring stick, you use a Space Marine.

People aren't necessarily objecting to your equations, they are objecting to your arbitrary cost assessments.

Nobody will argue that X+Y=Z is "math" (except for some pedantic people). But when you say that x = 3 and y =2 and therefore z = 5, you are assigning arbitrary values to x and y. That is where most of the people arguing against your calculator are coming from.

I appreciate the effort you've gone through, but without a consensus on your input into the equations, the results are effectively meaningless. Arbitrary in, arbitrary out, if you will.

That said, I have yet to play against GK, so I'll have to reserve judgement on their power level.

Garbage in garbage out!!!

People aren't necessarily objecting to your equations, they are objecting to your arbitrary cost assessments.

what arbitrary cost assesments? Storm shields or the grenades, cause those are the only two that are arbitrary, based off costs in the books.

Draigo wrote:So what do people get for "winning" this thread? It doesn't seem to be doing any good or be convincing anyone of anything.

5 rupies!

gendoikari87 wrote:ext Post:[/size]

Polonius wrote:ATSKNF isn't a leadership bump though... it's an insurance policy against sweeping advance, and also allows for more frequent regrouping. To hand wave away the value of it is worrying.

when the chance of failure is 16% or the effect afterward (remember it only comes into effect after you are below 50%, meaning your going to have maybe 3 marines) it's really not. Again, lets see you do better.

This is not a counter-argument. If people think a movie is bad, the director doesn't get to say, "Yeah, well, let's see you make one!"

The bottom line is when you say anything is over/undercosted, you need to back up your statement with something more than opinions. Because if it were up to me, guardsmen would be 3 points. I think that's a fair cost.

Why do we need to back up our statement with more than opinions? How would we even do that? Saying "blank" is better than "other blank" is inherintely subjective. You can provide examples of why they are better, but at the end of the day, there is no objective answer.

Except GK's, they are objectively broken.

Does anyone have the overall Ardboyz stats for non-placing entries?

I'm interested to see if the distribution of armies in the placings matches the distribution of armies overall.

While GK's have pretty much boned 2 armies (Daemons & Tyranids), I daresay the book is still far from the titanic disaster that 7th ed Daemons were?!! I mean, most competitive armies are now figuring out how to bring to the GK's and they do have their few 'bad match-ups'.

7th ed Fantasy Daemons on the other hand were... 'Game ending', to say the least...

gendoikari87 wrote:

Polonius wrote:ATSKNF isn't a leadership bump though... it's an insurance policy against sweeping advance, and also allows for more frequent regrouping. To hand wave away the value of it is worrying.

when the chance of failure is 16% or the effect afterward (remember it only comes into effect after you are below 50%, meaning your going to have maybe 3 marines) it's really not. Again, lets see you do better.

I don't need to do better. All I need to do is point out that you are making assumptions and deciding what is, and isn't, worth considering.

Which makes your model (which is what your system is, not "math") just like any other model: one that, while not strictly an opinion, also isn't exactly a statement of absolute truth.

Your model is similar in many ways to elaborate painting rubrics. They confer a false set of objectivity to a process that's simply more art than science.

The bottom line is when you say anything is over/undercosted, you need to back up your statement with something more than opinions. Because if it were up to me, guardsmen would be 3 points. I think that's a fair cost.

I think you might not completely understand that meaning of the word opinion. Opinion doesn't mean "things I make up." Likewise, just because you have numbers doesn't make your statements facts.

Nearly all human statements are statements describing the reality that we experience, tainted by our own biases and filters, such that we feel that they are objective truths but rarely are.

Anyways, you don't need to analyze every point cost in every codex, and develop a model to make a reasonable argument about what is and isn't overcosted. For example, the black templar rhino is 50pts, while the vanilla rhino is 35pts. Does anybody really think that the Black Templar book is constructed in such a way that 50pt rhinos are balanced? Or is that simply the result of changing design philosophy?

Now, looking at the vanilla rhino vs. the grey knight rhino, we see that the Grey Knights pay 5pts more, but get the fortitude special rule, which is 1/3 the cost of extra armor and 45-92% as effective in allowing movement, while also allowing the tank to fire. I think a compelling argument can be made that GK transports are undercosted.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:While GK's have pretty much boned 2 armies (Daemons & Tyranids), I daresay the book is still far from the titanic disaster that 7th ed Daemons were?!! I mean, most competitive armies are now figuring out how to bring to the GK's and they do have their few 'bad match-ups'.

7th ed Fantasy Daemons on the other hand were... 'Game ending', to say the least...

I agree with this. I actually don't think GK are overpowered in that sense. They wreck two borderline competitive armies (daemons and nids) while hanging with the other top notch lists.

I will say that the book has top notch solutions to nearly every top list, which other armies don't have. Part of that is being newer, but the layers of synergy coupled with a handful of dirt cheap units really makes the list respond well to nearly any threat. Purifiers are a great example. They pay 150pts for five bodies with two pyscannons, two halberds, a hammer, cleansing flamer, and fearless. Aside from death star units, they are pretty durable (especially in a rhino) while spitting out a lot of damage against nearly any target in shooting. A grandmaster can make them scoring without using Crowe, or they can be given counterattack or outflank. Psyfleman dreads do the heavy lifting against dreadnoughts. So, you have the core of a list that's realy good against both Mech and Hordes...

Methinks I found the assault weapon issue. It's somehow being overfactored in the Dead Marines CC equation, with it toggled to 1 instead of 0, it triples the number of marines counted as being killed in CC, blowing the points cost all out of proportion in a phase the weapon does not inflict casualties in.

Additionally, you've got a humongous function (=(2^C44)*E17*E24*(1/3)*(G2-G2*((E18*E22*E26))*(1/E2)*(1/2^C35)*E28)+(1-C56)*C41*L2+(1-C56)*C43*E25*E23/3+E17*5/6*C54*(2^C56*(1-1*((1/2^C35)*(1/E2)*(((E18*E22*E26))*(1-E17*E24*((2^C44)/3)*G2*E27)+(4/6)*E21*E26))*E28))+E25*5/6*C56+2.5*C56/3)) that I can't help think is grossly overthought and prone to easy errors.

Particularly with the Power Weapon conditional.

(2^C44)*E17*E24*(1/3): PW conditional*Chance to hit*chance to wound*chance to fail save

the (2^C44) in this case doesn't really make a whole lot of sense

For a basic marine statline, If we input 0, obviously the unit has no PW and it doesn't have any effect and we get 0.0833 average wounds inflicting (which is also easily accomplished simply by (0.5x0.5x(1/3)). If we input 1, we get 2*0.5*0.5*1/3. This result gives us 0.166. If we input 2 we get 0.33

However, if a PW were present, the equation really should just be 0.5 (chance to hit) x 0.5 (chance to wound) and no armor saves are possible ergo we go straight to equation resolution which then =0.25 average wounds inflicted, not a possible output to get without using a non-integer value in the PW special rules cell.

Then, we have some oddball issue in there where we get an additional "+(1-C56)*C41*L2". C56 is Servo Harness, C41 is Assault Weapon, L2 is the average dead marines from shooting. So essentially we're adding into this function a huge bit about the presence of a servo harness and for some reason including a multiplier based on the presence of an assault weapon multiplied by average casualties inflicted in a different phase.

So we have a systemic overvaluing of the assault weapon quality, and a drastic undervaluing of the presence of a Powerweapon.


Furthermore, when it comes to shooting, the arbitrary value of 1.5 shots for Rapid Fire weapons is a very subjective value, based on a simple average shot output over it's entire range spectrum but not taking count of the fact that most of the time such weapons are firing is at optimal (2 shot) range as opposed to 1 shot range.

There is some potentially cool stuff in here, but many of these equations are in fact not taking correct account of their variables.