here you go, do u understand this?
and the dispersion and recoil is exactly where ?
irrelevant 
Right, hitting the target is irrelevant.
Gotcha
1 Like
I will move on now, since it is near impossible to quantify the recoil and dispersion, as this leads to messy probability which does not conclude the strengths of the guns in an agreeable way
The recoil in enlisted is very easy to control, and both guns can hit dead center most of the time, dispersion is not that unreliable
You have been disproven that the PPSh-41 can outgun the StG, as this is not possible at any range
You have been freed from your delusion, have a nice day
So dispersion doesnt matter ?
Sure, dispersion you cant control.
Odd that fg42 had issues hitting then.
Yeah, come back with the dispersion included 
Neither Recoil or Dispersion are relevant for average TTK, which is the value provided. Both weapons can accurately hit the target at 80m. Recoil especially is a non-issue for anyone that has an iota of skill in gunplay.
Your tool also doesnāt account for recoil or dispersion.
With what logic ? Its matter of hitting or not.
if stg44 misses a one single shot, it turns the TTK calculation in favor of ppsh.
And thats why we compare weapons rather than what players can do.
True, nor velocity since for both guns its so fast that not a single human being could do any differency in that given time.
And considering the recoil for both guns is somewhat same that could be considered irrelevant but the dispersion is twice less for ppsh.
But yet again, dispersion doesnt matter
and here we are suggestin such small change as 0.25 ā 0.22
But somehow the 0.21 is irrelevant compared to 0.46
So sure, if you really want to go in detail with the calculations, go for it.
But be prepared to go in full depht of them then.
For average joe the simple tool such as used above is more than enough.
Quite clearly points out that a BR3 gun is performing well as if not better than BR5 gun.
Granted that both guns TTK is so fast that not even pro player could do differency in given time.
Velocity does matter though. 450m/s versus 680m/s is a noticeable difference. The time it takes for rounds to be on target is both quantifiable and impactful on ttk
Dispersion itself is not a quantifiable metric that can be added into an equation for time to kill, since it is truly random. At 80m, both guns can reliably hit body shots in the amount of rounds required to break the kill threshold (unless you have skill issue). However, the STG takes only 2 shots, while the PPSH takes 4 at 80m. The STG gets those two shots off marginally faster than the PPSH does 4, and its rounds hit the target faster. Average TTK is calculated with the assumption that all shots are hitting the target in the body. Thatās why itās the average.
Acting like the 41 outperforms the STG at range is silly. Itās a good gun, for sure, but it will not mechanically outperform an AR. Itās funny how you keep moving the goalposts to cope tho.
this is the differency
177.778 milliseconds (ms)
117.647 milliseconds (ms)
Not even pro players could react in that time.
Yet the fact that if Stg44 misses even a one shot changes the TTK in favor of ppsh.
So is the does it hit the target or not
Since weāre nitpicking here, im sure you clanners are more than capable to come some conclusion including it.
dunno, asking reduction of 0.25 ā 0.22 in dispersion while disregarding differency of 0.21 - 0.46.
Tell me some more about that coping.
1 Like
Not quantifiable. Again, average TTK is done with the assumption all shots hit target. At 80m this is both completely feasible and reasonable.
Nice job moving goalposts still. Letās recap:
1 - you use tool that has no accounting for dispersion and recoil on TTK
2 - Evo has a more in depth tool that also doesnāt have accounting for dispersion and recoil on TTK
3 - You say to add dispersion and recoil
4 - You say to figure out something because Iām in a clan
Maybe have a consistent argument for once. Iām sure a math whiz could draft up some equation to, but thatās not me. The āaverage joeā would just need to account for damage, velocity, ROF, and distance.
Iām not sure if you realized, but Iām not Evo. We donāt share the same brain. Again, coping and goalpost shifting by attributing to me what was said by another (at a time where the FG was mechanically the worst AR, as this post was pre-buff FG, mind you)
Means your equation is equally wrong then.
Except due to dispersion, the 100% accuracy is impossible to gain.
So no.
Nor me, so presenting equally wrong equation, pretending its the correct way, doesnt really do anything does it ?
We can conclude the velocity is irrelevant since not a single pro player could react in given time.
So we have 2 equally wrong equations, unless you really want to go in detail and take the dispersion in account which is indeed a weapon attribute.
Which kind of is the point here, if you really are going to pretend that your equation is the right one then make sure it is.
Which it isnt.
Well pardon me, people that creates clans in game that has no e-sport support nor really isnt a e-sport game to start with, could say they live in somekind of hivemind.
But as said, pardon me.
Regardless it yet remains un-clear how come such minimal differency is even suggested if 0.21 ā 0.46 is irrelevant.
It is indeed concerning however that:
No Soviet-main-sweatlord will ever use the Mosin over fictional Fedorov 1912 or PTRS-41 over debatable M1 Bazooka on BR2, accompanied by body armor of course a one-off āUraganā SMG.
No Soviet-main-sweatlord will ever use the PPSh-41 over never fielded ASs-44 or proto-ak Fedorov on BR5.
Many German-main-sweatlords will use Armaguerra over K98k on BR2 and Volkssturmās VG 1-5 over G-41 on BR3.
Puma and Pz III N āStalingradā are of course omnipresent everywhere on BR2 from Moscow to Tunisia and no German-main-sweatlord will take the iconic Pz IV F1 or Stug III A (for some reason still premium) over them.
1 Like
Why would you use the anti-tank br1 rifles in BR2 when they struggle or arenāt able to kill those vehicles? That isnt just a style choice, thats actively hampering yourself. I also do actually like using the Winchester over the Federov 1912 since it was changed
Moreover, using an SMG in BR5 is a questionable decision when all factions have assault rifles which entirely replace them
Also german āsweatlordsā are not using the armaguerra, that thing sucks XD
They would pick the Mannlicher 95
I dont think its at all concerning that players choose to use the most effective tools. There are many reasons for wanting to win, not just human nature but also the fact that the entire game is built around grinding exp and unlocking new items and cool things to use. Winning or at the least performing well earn you more income, so its natural that people want to use the best items
And thatās why itās concerning and really unfortunate that WW2 gear in this āWW2 gameā is often overshadowed by stuff that never even saw the light of day in WW2 like Fedorov 1912 or Hyde 44.
1 Like
wouldnāt say unfortunate nor concerning given itās done by design.
and gameplay reasons.
but i guess weāll have to go through with this 10000 more replies with you, donāt we.
2 Likes
There are plenty of iconic ww2 weapons that are the best option in their class for each faction
Springfield 1903 USMC in BR1, Lee Enfield in BR2, M1 Garand in BR3
Thompson and Owen are good
Kar98K is a fantastic BR1 rifle with versions that are viable in BR2
PPSh-41 box is great in BR3, as is the SVT-38
The BAR is an incredible weapon in BR3 for machine gun
These are all iconic weapons that are not overshadowed, in fact these are the guns of WW2
And its not even like the MP40 is unusable, so I dont know what your point is
MP40 and MP38 belong at BR1 with Sten mk2 and Austen that recently got downtiered.
BSA Welgun is MP40 but better as it has better dispersion, visual recoil and minimal recoil direction so gun is more predictive while Mp40 bounces all over the target.
Ofc they could buff it by a ton but it wonāt be as good as M38/42 or especially Suomi no matter how you buff it. Firerrate is just too low with recent power creep of M1A1 and literally any soviet smg.
| Submachine Guns | Actual Recoil | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weapon Name | Vertical | Horizontal | Dispersion | Visual Recoil | Recoil Dir |
| BSA Welgun | 11 | 3 | 0.65 | 1.1 | 0.1 |
| MP 40 | 8 | 3 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.35 |
3 Likes
Actually it is quantifiable.
Dispersion is essentially an angle of a cone (if I remember correctly). So you can calculate the proportion of gun with more dispersion / gun with less dispersion (very simplified formula for visualization only) and use it as a metric of how many more bullets on average the former has to shoot to hit the same area as the later.
I guess euthy should confirm the assumptions on how dispersion works as I may miss remember it.
4 Likes
Actually amazing analysis.
We literally could create a weapons spreadsheet for different ranges - spoiler fast rate of fire guns are often just as accurate as slow rate of fire guns, and as such are more effective at close AND longer ranges, which is completely counter intuitive.
Slow rate of fire guns cant simply have slightly less recoil than fast shooting guns - dispersion is much more impactful than recoil.
2 Likes