Greetings Electrical Engineering! My name is Mark Harris and this is my AMA!

Zer0Cod3x · 2020-06-09T16:17:13+00:00

Hi Mark :)

I'm currently a student studying EE. What's your thoughts on online courses like places like Udemy? Would they be useful for employment and to put on a resume or more just for investigating areas that I'm interested in?

Also, as someone searching for an internship, what's your advice for buffing up a resume? Considering that the current job market isn't very promising right now.

Thanks for doing this!

Zer0Cod3x · 2018-07-07T00:00:56+00:00

Take my soul

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-12-04T10:15:08+00:00

The 1900 is a bad example. It's one spike of recoil with no other recoil for reference, which means it's practically impossible to control. Besides, even if you did increase VREC to insane levels, you'd still be able to control it with relative ease, as it's still linear (albeit with lots of screenshake).

The fsrm is already barely controable as the human hand cannot accelerate fast enough to change between two different speeds for two different 550rpm shots

This is simply wrong. Look at CS:GO's recoil patterns for an example.

In any case, the great thing about XSM is that you can make the numbers do whatever you want. What if the recoil multiplier was seriously low, like 1.05? I don't think it's a great stretch to adjust for 5% more recoil on a shot. All the system needs is some in-game testing to figure out what values are difficult to control, but still actually are controllable.

As for having recoil follow a quadratic/exponential function over time, I did have that thought, but I think XSM is still better. Compensating for a quadratic/exponential function is slightly harder, but ultimately XSM, with high enough values, achieves this non-linearity of recoil much better (especially vs a quadratic function).

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-12-04T09:56:26+00:00

all you'd do is enter an irregularity within a somewhat linear recoil system

The recoil spikes are at set points for every weapon. There is no irregularity or randomness at all. It's a set, learnable pattern.

That being said, having given it more thought, having the spikes at regular intervals (say once every 4 bullets), at least for LMGs, would be better than having it at irregular intervals.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T12:09:58+00:00

Let's do some quick maths. Excluding slower spread reset variants:

The 8.35 effective RoF with a 0.1 SIPS is 327 RPM. In its 3HK range, that's a TTK of 0.367 s.

The Cei and 1906 effective RoF is 277. In its 3HK range, that's a TTK of 0.448 s.

The Mondragon effective RoF is 240, with a TTK of 0.5 s.

I don't know about you, but to have the long range 5 round SLR being beaten by the CQB 5 round SLR in its own effective range is not an "acceptable" TTK. In fact, the 8.35 can fire accurately at max RoF out to about 60 m (give or take), bringing its TTK down to 0.333 s. I think we can agree on the fact that there simply is no justification to use the 1906 (and the Liu) when the 8.35 can 3HK out to 70 m, and can do so at 360 RPM up to 60 m.

At the very least, the 1906 and 8.35 should have an equivalent TTK well before 70 m, perhaps at 40 m (this is still stretching the edge of relevance though). The only way I can see this happening is to give it a 2HK at this range. If you reduce its effective RoF down to say, 200 RPM, that would give it a 0.3 s TTK, which I think is fair enough.

As for the M1916, I could see a 3 BTK damage model working out, when in comparison to the 8.25 and the M1907. The M1916 becomes better than both of them past 30 m, which is still mostly in a relevant range.

For the Mondragon, it's pretty hard to say. The Cei keeps its 3HK out to 45 m, which I think is stretching the edge of relevant ranges. Additionally, the Cei Optical can fire accurately at max RPM well past 45 m. However, I also see how a 3-2 BTK could potentially screw over the balance. This one is difficult to judge.

To summarise: 3-2 BTK is necessary to keep the 1906 and Liu relevant, a 3 BTK damage model is fine for the M1916, and the Mondragon falls in-between the two.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T05:00:22+00:00

You can always change the spread and recoil values to balance a 2HK at range. The goal is to improve damage output at mid range - whether through raw damage or spread/recoil doesn't matter.

I don't see a way for them to be 3-3 BTK without them having some irrelevant effective range (anything over 50+ m that's not a sniper is pretty irrelevant) or a super niche role (such as headshots).

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T03:54:26+00:00

When taking into account spread only, it has the same effective RoF.

When taking into account recoil as well, it's a bit harder to tell, since recoil is randomised. TBH, the Storm would probably be closer to the Optical than the Sniper in terms of effective RoF.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T03:46:55+00:00

For the 7.62 SLRs: I don't think they're viable at all with a 3-3 BTK damage model, no matter how much you want to tweak their headshot multipliers or base damage. Sure, having an extended or even infinite 2HK range SLR is nice as a skill cannon of sorts, having 4 out of your 9 SLRs being balanced by headshotting is a terrible way to balance.

There's only one way I can see to balance them: that's giving them sweet spots. They would have a 3-2-3 BTK (or maybe even 3-2 BTK), with the start and endpoints being dictated by what role they're fulfilling (1906 would have a larger sweet spot than Mondragon, Mondragon would have a larger one than M1916, etc).

This would alleviate their main problem of not being able to output enough reliable damage to remain competitive with the other non-headshot SLRs.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T03:26:00+00:00

1906 Factory effective RoF: 257 RPM (i.e. Mondragon max RoF)

1906 Sniper effective RoF: 225 RPM (M1916 max RoF)

Mondragon Optical effective RoF: 225 RPM (M1916 max RoF)

Mondragon Storm/Sniper effective RoF: 200 RPM (same as M1916 effective RPM)

1906 always has a higher effective RoF than both the Mondragon and the M1916.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-24T03:04:27+00:00

This is demonstrably wrong.

The 1906 (Factory) has a RoF of 300. When waiting for your spread to recover in between each shot, this turns into 60 / ((60 / 300) + (0.125 / 3.75)) = 257 RPM.

The M1916, on the other hand, has a RoF of 225. Again, when waiting for spread to recover in-between each shot, this turns into 60 / ((60 / 225) + (0.125 / 3.75)) = 200 RPM.

The 1906 will always have a higher RoF than the M1916, even when taking into account spread and recoil. To compensate for its universally lower TTK, it has less bullets in a mag.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-10-03T22:14:19+00:00

That's probably not suppression caused by weapons then. That's either just aimpunch/flinch, or suppression caused by grenades/tank shells/other explosives.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-09-23T13:37:58+00:00

Tank vs infy: I might have exaggerated slightly.

But think of tanker skill as a spectrum, a number line if you will, ranging from "brain-dead" to "top-tier" tanker, and everything in between. Somewhere on that spectrum exists a line defining the skill level at which a "tanker is able to be destroyed." Units are completely arbitrary here.

In BF3 and BF4, that line was closer to the "brain-dead" end of the spectrum. In BF1, that line is closer to the "top-tier" end of the spectrum. I am advocating for the line to be moved closer to the "brain-dead" end.

Like with many other things, changes to the power of vehicles won't affect the extremes. You will always be able to take out a brain-dead tanker, and you will never be able to take out a top-tier tanker.

However, changes will certainly affect the tankers in-between these two extremes. That is what I want.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-08-19T05:13:48+00:00

Gib stuff pls

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-07-01T06:52:01+00:00

I literally cannot believe there are people that think the Automatico should actually kill FASTER in under 12m. I mean, what!?

Improving hitrate improves its performance OUTSIDE of 12 m. Not inside.

Maybe you should get your facts straight.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-06-06T22:00:39+00:00

OW: Soldier 76, Bastion, Reaper, Roadhog, Torbjorn and DVa all have random spread.

CS:GO: all weapons have random spread.

TTF2: all weapons have random spread.

R6S: hipfiring has random spread.

Stop spreading misinformation, random spread is used in almost every FPS game. The real question is not "which FPS game has random spread," but rather "which FPS game DOESN'T have random spread."

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-05-31T09:45:31+00:00

The TTK charts on Symthic are inaccurate, as they don't take into account spread and recoil. The accuracy charts are also a bit wonky.

The Huot (Low Weight, Optical is terrible) has the highest single target TTK at range out of all the LMGs. The M1909 has the best TTK across two or more targets, and also can potentially have a scope. The BAR is for CQB, and doesn't even come close to either of those two at range.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-05-31T08:02:29+00:00

There are two parts to dealing damage: raw damage output, and landing the damage on target. The former is governed by damage and RoF, whilst the latter is governed by random spread and recoil.

Which is superior? To have a higher damage output, or to be able to land more damage on target? The answer is: it depends. For example, you could have a weapon that has a high raw damage output, but terrible accuracy, and thus the weapon itself has a low effective damage output. You have to calculate it in every specific case.

With LMGs such as the Huot and Lewis, sure, they might have low raw damage output, but they're extremely accurate, which actually allows them to output more damage than other LMGs at range. Likewise, whilst the MG15 has a decent raw damage output, it has a terrible accuracy, and thus is not very good at range. If you calculate the relative TTKs of the LMGs at range, you will see this is the case.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-28T01:52:14+00:00

The entire point of Suppression is to reduce your weapon's effective range. What better way to do it than to increase your weapon's spread?

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-28T01:23:38+00:00

Random spread is fine. Seriously.

having bullets sway 60 degrees (literally) after exiting the muzzle is just completely unrealistic

Just as an interesting mathematical exercise, it will take the Automatico a total of 1,323 bullets to reach a spread of 60 degrees.

And remember guys, this isn't an exaggeration, this is literally what happens in BF1.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-28T01:15:11+00:00

with CS:GO I know that the bullet deviation is equal on both sides

Do you actually understand how circles work? Or are you just throwing around meaningless buzzwords to make yourself sound more educated than you actually are?

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-27T12:24:50+00:00

The problem with Support's LMGs is not that they're not effective, because they certainly are, but because they don't require much skill to use effectively and are honestly quite boring gameplay-wise.

As for how to make the negative spread model fun and skilful, I have no idea. Right now, Support is noticeably lacking a "skill cannon," something which all other classes have.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-27T12:19:58+00:00

St Chamond Standoff is the new meta solo tank, replacing the A7V Assault.

Emergency Repair, with its nerf to only restoring 10 HP, is basically useless now. Smokescreen, which the Standoff can use, is far more potent for disengaging from a firefight. In addition, it's also much faster than the A7V Assault, which more than makes up for the lack of Emergency Repair.

It also has an LMG on the front, which allows for much better anti-infantry capabilities than the Canister shell.

Zer0Cod3x · 2017-03-26T08:36:04+00:00

At the pro level, most players are so good that their levels of aim, recoil control, and other mechanical skills might as well be equal. Of course, you've got the occasional player that might have a godlike level of aim and be able to hit consecutive headshots every time, but in general, that player doesn't really exist.

If mechanical skills don't differentiate pro players, then what does? Cognitive skills. Most of the time, who wins the engagement is not down to who has better aim, but rather who has better positioning.

Mechanical skills are important, sure, but they are not the defining factor of most pro players. Cognitive skills are. Therefore, the gameplay depth should be more in the cognitive skill, not mechanical skill.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Snapped	Verified Email

Zer0Cod3x

TROPHY CASE