Accuracy changes 3.2

[Per]

So here are the changes I suggest in order to compensate the change of direct fire to always hit, as previously discussed. I am implementing this by making 100% the default hit chance ("longHit" in weapons.ini) value, and removing all hit chance lines from weapons.ini for direct fire weapons, effectively giving them 100% hit chance. This means modders can bring back the old way very easily.

What I did was I took an accuracy of 80% as a baseline, since 23 direct fire weapons already had this value. Then I modified other direct fire weapons in whatever way I thought would make them feel the least different. I also took into account that weapons with high splash did not suffer as much from lack of accuracy as other weapons. Generally, cannons and railguns have less splash radius, mg weapons do less damage (making them shoot slower was not an option), and pod rockets are now an indirect fire weapon (hence can continue to miss all the time). Other weapons usually just fire slower.

This was a very quick and dirty round, to make sure we have a starting point, so I am sure there are mistakes and many possible improvements. So feel free to post your criticism of the individual changes. To keep the discussion on topic, any 'the sky is falling' comments will be moved out of this thread or just deleted.

The full list of changes (+ means line added, - means line removed):

Code: Select all

 [ZNULLWEAPON]
 [SpyTurret01]
-longHit = 100
 [RocketSuper]
-longHit = 80
 [MissileSuper]
-longHit = 90
 [MassDriver]
-longHit = 90
 [CannonSuper]
-longHit = 90
 [Rocket-VTOL-Pod]
-movement = DIRECT
+movement = INDIRECT
 [Rocket-VTOL-LtA-T]
-longHit = 60
-reloadTime = 120
+reloadTime = 140
-damage = 165
+damage = 155
 [Rocket-VTOL-HvyA-T]
-longHit = 60
-reloadTime = 160
+reloadTime = 190
-damage = 240
+damage = 230
 [Rocket-VTOL-BB]
-longHit = 70
-minimumDamage = 33
+minimumDamage = 0
 [Rocket-Pod]
-movement = DIRECT
+movement = INDIRECT
 [Rocket-MRL]
 [Rocket-Sunburst]
-longHit = 50
-numRounds = 6
+numRounds = 4
 [Rocket-VTOL-Sunburst]
-longHit = 50
-numRounds = 6
+numRounds = 4
 [Rocket-LtA-T]
-longHit = 60
-reloadTime = 160
+reloadTime = 180
-damage = 105
+damage = 100
 [Rocket-IDF]
 [Rocket-HvyA-T]
-longHit = 60
-reloadTime = 200
+reloadTime = 220
-damage = 180
+damage = 160
 [Rocket-BB]
-longHit = 70
-minimumDamage = 33
+minimumDamage = 0
 [RailGun3Mk1]
-longHit = 70
-radius = 192
+radius = 160
 [RailGun2Mk1]
-longHit = 70
-radius = 160
-radiusHit = 100
+radius = 128
 [RailGun2-VTOL]
-longHit = 70
-radius = 160
-radiusHit = 100
+radius = 128
 [RailGun1Mk1]
-longHit = 70
-radius = 96
-radiusHit = 100
+radius = 64
 [RailGun1-VTOL]
-longHit = 60
-radius = 96
+radius = 64
 [QuadRotAAGun]
-longHit = 75
 [QuadMg1AAGun]
-longHit = 75
 [PlasmiteFlamer]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 20
+firePause = 25
-damage = 63
+damage = 60
 [PlasmaHeavy]
 [MortarEMP]
 [Mortar3ROTARYMk1]
 [Mortar2Mk1]
 [Mortar1Mk1]
 [Mortar-Incenediary]
 [Missile-VTOL-AT]
-longHit = 80
 [Missile-MdArt]
 [Missile-LtSAM]
-longHit = 80
 [Missile-HvySAM]
-longHit = 80
 [Missile-HvyArt]
-longHit = 80
 [Missile-A-T]
-longHit = 80
 [MG5TWINROTARY]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 28
+damage = 20
 [MG4ROTARYMk1]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 19
+damage = 15
 [MG4ROTARY-VTOL]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 28
+damage = 20
 [MG4ROTARY-Pillbox]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 19
+damage = 15
 [MG3Mk1]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 17
+damage = 15
 [MG3-VTOL]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 27
+damage = 20
 [MG3-Pillbox]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 17
+damage = 15
 [MG2Mk1]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 14
+damage = 10
 [MG2-VTOL]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 21
+damage = 16
 [MG2-Pillbox]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 14
+damage = 10
 [MG1Mk1]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 10
+damage = 7
 [MG1-VTOL]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 15
+damage = 12
 [MG1-Pillbox]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 10
+damage = 7
 [LasSat]
-longHit = 100
 [Laser4-PlasmaCannon]
-longHit = 65
-firePause = 150
+firePause = 175
-radiusHit = 100
 [Laser3BEAMMk1]
-longHit = 80
 [Laser3BEAM-VTOL]
-longHit = 80
 [Laser2PULSEMk1]
-longHit = 80
 [Laser2PULSE-VTOL]
-longHit = 80
 [Howitzer150Mk1]
 [Howitzer105Mk1]
 [Howitzer03-Rot]
 [Howitzer-Incenediary]
 [HeavyLaser-VTOL]
-longHit = 80
 [HeavyLaser]
-longHit = 80
 [Flame2]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 20
+firePause = 25
 [Flame1Mk1]
-longHit = 40
-firePause = 20
+firePause = 25
 [EMP-Cannon]
-longHit = 50
 [CyborgRotMG]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 18
+damage = 15
 [CyborgRocket]
-longHit = 60
-firePause = 160
+firePause = 200
 [CyborgFlamer01]
-longHit = 40
-firePause = 18
+firePause = 20
-damage = 22
+damage = 20
 [CyborgChaingun]
-longHit = 50
-damage = 12
+damage = 9
 [CyborgCannon]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 30
+firePause = 38
 [Cyb-Wpn-Thermite]
-longHit = 40
-damage = 38
+damage = 33
 [Cyb-Wpn-Rail1]
-longHit = 70
-firePause = 36
+firePause = 40
-damage = 120
+damage = 110
-radiusHit = 100
 [Cyb-Wpn-Laser]
-longHit = 80
 [Cyb-Wpn-Grenade]
 [Cyb-Wpn-Atmiss]
-longHit = 80
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-TK]
-longHit = 60
-firePause = 180
+firePause = 200
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-RailGunner]
-longHit = 70
-radius = 128
+radius = 96
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-PulseLsr]
-longHit = 80
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-Mcannon]
-longHit = 55
-radius = 96
+radius = 64
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-HPV]
-longHit = 65
-firePause = 40
+firePause = 44
-minimumDamage = 33
+minimumDamage = 30
-radiusHit = 100
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-Acannon]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 15
+firePause = 18
-damage = 35
-radius = 96
+damage = 30
+radius = 64
 [Cyb-Hvywpn-A-T]
-longHit = 80
 [CommandTurret1]
-longHit = 100
 [Cannon6TwinAslt]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 15
+firePause = 18
-radius = 192
+radius = 160
 [Cannon5VulcanMk1]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 15
+firePause = 18
-radius = 128
+radius = 96
 [Cannon5Vulcan-VTOL]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 15
+firePause = 18
-radius = 128
+radius = 96
 [AAGun2Mk1]
-longHit = 65
-firePause = 65
+firePause = 75
-damage = 110
+damage = 100
 [Cannon4AUTOMk1]
-longHit = 65
-firePause = 50
+firePause = 55
-damage = 70
+damage = 65
-radiusHit = 100
 [Cannon4AUTO-VTOL]
-longHit = 65
-firePause = 50
+firePause = 55
-damage = 140
+damage = 120
-radiusHit = 100
 [Cannon375mmMk1]
-longHit = 55
-firePause = 60
+firePause = 65
-radius = 192
+radius = 160
 [Cannon2A-TMk1]
-longHit = 55
-firePause = 40
+firePause = 45
-radius = 128
+radius = 96
 [Cannon1Mk1]
-longHit = 55
-firePause = 30
+firePause = 35
-damage = 35
+damage = 30
 [Cannon1-VTOL]
-longHit = 55
-radius = 96
+radius = 64
 [BusCannon]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 30
+firePause = 40
 [BuggyMG]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 5
+firePause = 7
 [bTrikeMG]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 5
+firePause = 7
 [BTowerMG]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 5
+firePause = 7
 [Bomb6-VTOL-EMP]
-longHit = 80
 [Bomb5-VTOL-Plasmite]
-longHit = 80
 [Bomb4-VTOL-HvyINC]
-longHit = 80
 [Bomb3-VTOL-LtINC]
-longHit = 80
 [Bomb2-VTOL-HvHE]
-longHit = 80
 [Bomb1-VTOL-LtHE]
-longHit = 80
 [BJeepMG]
-longHit = 50
-firePause = 5
+firePause = 7
 [BabaRocket]
-longHit = 20
-reloadTime = 100
+reloadTime = 150
-damage = 20
+damage = 15
 [BabaPitRocketAT]
-longHit = 30
-firePause = 3
+firePause = 6
 [BabaPitRocket]
-longHit = 30
-firePause = 6
+firePause = 9
-damage = 16
+damage = 14
 [BaBaMG]
-longHit = 40
-damage = 10
+damage = 8
 [BabaFlame]
-longHit = 40
-firePause = 120
+firePause = 140
 [BaBaCannon]
-longHit = 40
-firePause = 30
+firePause = 35
-damage = 28
+damage = 25
 [AAGunLaser]
-longHit = 80

[War2070]

If I want to test these balance changes right now since the 3.2 isn't available yet, will I have to change the accuracy in the ini file to 100 ?

[Per]

To test, pull down the most recent snapshot from http://buildbot.wz2100.net/files/ (or compile your own based on master) and use the attached weapons.ini

[Iluvalar]

You fail Per. In three ways.

First, I keep repeating you the next 2 comments. You should have read them and understood already...

Second, We saw in another topic how a DPS change can be catastrophic. You just buffed the DPS by 25%. Your base line needed to be at 100%.

Third, The damage is in subtractive logic with armor in warzone2100. The result is variable depending of the body of the enemy. You just can't scale it like you've done. For exemple a MG2MK with the first 2 mg upgrade have a damage of 22 (14*1.6) while yours now have 16. When shooting on a viper (10AC) the actual one do 12 damage, while yours make 6 damage. A nerf of 50% while you were aiming, I assume, 35%. The result will be chaotic. You need to make the changes trough Rate OF Fire ! It is the only stat still avalaible for such balance if you bust the accuracy.

[crab_]

Hello.
here is some questions and criticism.

c1. Does it mean indirect weapons inaccuracy will be saved? e.g. howitzers will be inaccurate
Why you decided to make direct weapon 100% hit? please point me to results of discussion or voting.
Or just say what is main reason.

c2. Is it true: all this changes is "feel" changes? e.g. why you changed splash radius of assault cannon from 128 to 96? not 97 or 98

c3. Do you removed accuracy upgrades for direct weapons? some research paths will be shorten if you remove these upgrades. What you plan to do with accuracy research for direct weapons?

c4. Is it true: after your changes most weapons will be weaken.
See you nerfed damage and accuracy upgrades now have not any effect.
Example:
In past: rockets have normal damage and 100% accuracy (when accuracy upgrades are researched)
after your change: rockets have less damage and 100% accuracy
May be additional damage and ROF upgardes should be placed instead of accuracy upgrades?

c5
c5.1 You changed [Rocket-Pod] and [Rocket-VTOL-Pod] from direct to indirect.
Rocket-pod will be able fire through my tanks. In this case enemy cannot hide damaged units behind healthy units.
Did you taken into account increase of effectiveness of Rocket-Pod due to adding ability to fire through enemy tanks?

c5.2 what mean 'crap = 100' in your change list? see [RailGun2-VTOL]

c5.3 Why not changed [HeavyLaser]. Heavy laser was direct-fire weapon.

c5.4 Why each cannon changed different way?
light cannon - 0% change splash radius
medium cannon - minus 25% splash radius
assault cannon - minus 25% splash radius
twin assault cannon - minus 16% splash radius
heavy cannon - minus 16% splash radius
i see medium-stage cannons was a nerfed more. (they are underpowered already)

twin assault cannon - firepause +16%
heavy cannon - firepause 7%

c6 Do you understand value of machingun damage.
in some cases changing it -10% can make this weapon 20% weaken.
Example: mg have 30 damage and target have 30 armor;
if you nerf MG to 27 damage (-10%), then it will be 25% weaken to enemy with 20 armor.
Why you nerfed machinegun by 30%, but heavy machinegun only 21%?

c6.1 You said for machinegun "making them shoot slower was not an option"
Can you explain what you meant? why this is not an option?

c7. I think such feel changes can bring more disturbance in gamme state.
Better to calculate effect of each change. Iluvalar can do it


My suggestion: if you want 100% hit chance - just do it. Do not change damage/rof stats.
Weapons/armor should be balanced in complete way, include re-viewing all factors.
We have broken balance in 3.1 series, so trying to keep it is wrong way, because as result you just getting more chaos .

[Per]

c1. Does it mean indirect weapons inaccuracy will be saved? e.g. howitzers will be inaccurate

Yes.

Why you decided to make direct weapon 100% hit? please point me to results of discussion or voting.

You can start at viewtopic.php?f=42&t=10794. There are other, older threads, as well.

c2. Is it true: all this changes is "feel" changes? e.g. why you changed splash radius of assault cannon from 128 to 96? not 97 or 98

I used values already used by other weapons for comparison.

c3. Do you removed accuracy upgrades for direct weapons? some research paths will be shorten if you remove these upgrades. What you plan to do with accuracy research for direct weapons?

I have not changed them. Not sure what to do with them yet. Probably just change them to rate of fire upgrades.

c4. Is it true: after your changes most weapons will be weaken.
See you nerfed damage and accuracy upgrades now have not any effect.
Example:
In past: rockets have normal damage and 100% accuracy (when accuracy upgrades are researched)
after your change: rockets have less damage and 100% accuracy
May be additional damage and ROF upgardes should be placed instead of accuracy upgrades?

Probably.

c5
c5.1 You changed [Rocket-Pod] and [Rocket-VTOL-Pod] from direct to indirect.
Rocket-pod will be able fire through my tanks. In this case enemy cannot hide damaged units behind healthy units.
Did you taken into account increase of effectiveness of Rocket-Pod due to adding ability to fire through enemy tanks?

No.

c5.2 what mean 'crap = 100' in your change list? see [RailGun2-VTOL]

That was an artifact of the forum's bad word filter. Any line with 'radiusHit' in it got turned into 'crap' (not sure why crap is such a nicer word, but hey...). I have removed the overzealous bad word check that caused this.

c5.3 Why not changed [HeavyLaser]. Heavy laser was direct-fire weapon.

It is changed...?

c5.4 Why each ... changed different way?

Probably no good reason. Please suggest a more consistent and improved set of changes. I agree mg changes may have been a bad idea.

c6.1 You said for machinegun "making them shoot slower was not an option"
Can you explain what you meant? why this is not an option?

They do not look good, I think.

c7. I think such feel changes can bring more disturbance in gamme state.
Better to calculate effect of each change.

Disturbance is not necessarily a bad thing. I agree we should make a way to calculate and simulate game balance, but right now we do not have that, and there are so many variables and weapons (due to crazy duplication for vtol, buildings etc. there are over a hundred weapons in total!) that this is quite difficult.

My suggestion: if you want 100% hit chance - just do it. Do not change damage/rof stats.
Weapons/armor should be balanced in complete way, include re-viewing all factors.
We have broken balance in 3.1 series, so trying to keep it is wrong way, because as result you just getting more chaos .

That is also an option, I guess.

[NoQ]

Probably, yeah, delay the actual rebalancing to beta, instead of trying to preserve the balance after every step? Since we don't have too much to preserve anyway ... Maybe dedicate a few 3.2 betas for balancing whenever they get any popular to see the effect?

We also still don't have any solid vision of desired weapon functions, eg. how exactly should flamers be functionally different from machineguns? I have no idea how to go further without that.

[crab_]

c1 - closed.
c2 - closed. answered.
с3 - to do: adjust accuracy upgrades
c4 - to do: adjust accuracy upgrades
c5.1 - to do: need more safer solution for Mini-Rocket Pod
c5.2 - closed. answered.
c5.3 - to do: adjust Heavy Laser (as well as other weapons)
c5.4 - to do: cannons require another way to be nerfed
c6 - to do: MGs require another way to be nerfed
c6.1 - closed. answered.
c7 - need more discussion


@Per

c8: Can you explain situation for indirect-fire weapons?
How it is planned to be? is LongHit will be be applied to indirect weapons as it works in 3.1.0?

c9: What plans about correction placement of missed shots for indirect weapons?

c10 How much weapons should be nerfed.
I mean: how much weaken weapons should be if it had 50% long-ranged accuracy and 80% short-range accuracy?
50% accuracy means 50% misses for single target, but X misses for multiplie targets. What X = ?

c11 Did you take into account short range accuracy?
Should be 'short range accuracy' taken into account?
As i remember short range accuracy was removed but stats data was not adjusted in that time.

About Mini-rockets
I suggest to not change it to indirect. One of reasons - Mini-Rocket array is indirect and very similar to Rocket-Pos but have "artillery" modifier.
Better way is reduce ROF, but not sure.

c5.3 Why not changed [HeavyLaser]. Heavy laser was direct-fire weapon.

It is changed...?

Heavy Laser had 80% hit-chance, but you did not nerfed DPS.

Code: Select all

 [HeavyLaser]
-longHit = 80

c5.4 Why each ... changed different way?

Probably no good reason. Please suggest a more consistent and improved set of changes. I agree mg changes may have been a bad idea.

Currently i see is more safer way to do changes - is reduce ROF. Changing ROF should not break anything.
Another way - calculate change impact for weapons. And change damage+ROF.
I think i can calculate average change of DPS of MGs.

Changing splash radius is not good idea, because this can make different impact in some cases.

c6.1 You said for machinegun "making them shoot slower was not an option"
Can you explain what you meant? why this is not an option?

They do not look good, I think.

I think ROF can be changed plus or minus 50% without any visual impact.


My overall thought - all stats data should be reviewed.

Probably, yeah, delay the actual rebalancing to beta, instead of trying to preserve the balance after every step? Since we don't have too much to preserve anyway ... Maybe dedicate a few 3.2 betas for balancing whenever they get any popular to see the effect?

We also still don't have any solid vision of desired weapon functions, eg. how exactly should flamers be functionally different from machineguns? I have no idea how to go further without that.

Agreed.
Need solid vision of whole stats data. Start from changing research tree.
Patching patches is bad way.

[Per]

Indirect fire is unchanged, just as in 3.1.0. Short range hit chance is gone, so not taken into account. I have no plans to change how missed shots are placed for indirect fire weapons myself, but code changes to improve it are most welcome.

As I wrote above, I used 80% accuracy as a baseline, so I did not change any 80% accuracy weapons.

I have tested games with naive RoF adjustments to match increased accuracy, and it seemed more boring, at least to me. 50% slower firing rate is a lot, and you are going to get much worse than 50% in a few cases. You should also take into account the chance that a misfire actually hits, ie splash and very short range, which is hard.

[crab_]

Short range hit chance is gone, so not taken into account.

Short range accuracy was removed without stats changes. So why need change stats data now? I think accuracy balance was broken since 3.0beta was released., so what reason to change anything.. Not sure if 2.3.x had any balance in accuracy system.

MG had 75% short range and 50% long range. How much DPS of MG should be nerfed?
I just dont know how much DPS equals to 1% of accuracy.

I have no plans to change how missed shots are placed for indirect fire weapons myself, but code changes to improve it are most welcome.

Some people, as i remember, already proposed some patches.. not sure what was wrong.
There is a lot of variants, i think you can easily fix problem with accuracy chance converted to map points (tiles). Any another solutions is better and improves code.

Code: Select all

else /* Deal with a missed shot */
	{
		int missDist = 2 * (100 - resultHitChance) + minOffset; // <---- Hit chance converted to distance. wtf
	}

As I wrote above, I used 80% accuracy as a baseline, so I did not change any 80% accuracy weapons.

ah. my mistake. heavy laser had 80% hit chance and was not changed.

I have tested games with naive RoF adjustments to match increased accuracy, and it seemed more boring, at least to me. 50% slower firing rate is a lot, and you are going to get much worse than 50% in a few cases.

Each kind of machinegun have different ROF. HMG have the lowest ROF.
What weapon you tested with 50% ROF decrease?
Do you know. with ROF upgrades MG units shoot twice faster.
May be can increase flight speed for MG bullets to make visual part better?

You should also take into account the chance that a misfire actually hits, ie splash and very short range, which is hard.

So.. easier and better do not change stats, just set hit chance to 100% ?

[Iluvalar]

I agree we should make a way to calculate and simulate game balance, but right now we do not have that.

I do.

[vexed]

I agree we should make a way to calculate and simulate game balance, but right now we do not have that.

I do.

Not this again.
We don't need something that is basically using magic variables and expect the results to mean anything.

We need an actual simulator, that uses the exact same functions that the game uses.
Anything else and it is meaningless speculation, no matter how much you massage the data to get it to show the results you want it to show.

[stiv]

As Per says, without some way to replay a game/scenario and score the results, all this balance stuff is just wanking over the numbers. Sure, it's fun, but not necessarily useful.

Given a way to replay and evaluate a scene, you can then talk objectively about changes to the stats. Maybe even apply some optimization or machine learning algos.

[crab_]

I agree we should make a way to calculate and simulate game balance, but right now we do not have that.

I do.

Not this again.
We don't need something that is basically using magic variables and expect the results to mean anything.

I think Iluvalar's method was not so bad. I think his method can be used as useful addition, but need to uncover all "magic" coefficients and comment out all formulas. Every each number must be uncovered and clear.

We need an actual simulator, that uses the exact same functions that the game uses.
Anything else and it is meaningless speculation, no matter how much you massage the data to get it to show the results you want it to show.

s1) Its impossible to simulate all possible player actions.
Also its hard to simulate situation on every map.
Simulation cannot be 100% accurate. Im afraid simulation is only just model, in game human player have lots of possibilities.
Iluvalar's method is model too.

s2) To process results of simulation some mathematical and statistical "magic" methods still required.
Warzone have more than 1500 tank designs, thousands of possible research states.

s3) May it can be possible to play warzone game without graphics. May be add some js-functions to make possible game simulation directly in game?

s4) I think Research tree is not designed to provide balanced games. I think research tree should be changed.
Some upgrades are so much overpowered. We have many invisible upgrades which increase power of tanks dramatically for very low price.

s5) Someone can write codes to simulate game (i'm started some test code, but it looks very hard)
BUT we still need "solid vision" of whole game(!)
- decide what maps should be supported
Example: make both low-oil and high-oil maps to be supported. Low-oil and High-oil is different games.
- roles of weapons, as NoQ said "solid vision of desired weapon functions"
- ways to play game (enumerate all possible strategies etc.)
etc....

As Per says, without some way to replay a game/scenario and score the results, all this balance stuff is just wanking over the numbers. Sure, it's fun, but not necessarily useful.

replay game/scenario is just wanking over 'the hundreds of possible cases', need overall vision of game

offtopic:

Hey crabster, just wondering, why the name change ?

I cannot respont to PMs.

[Iluvalar]

I agree we should make a way to calculate and simulate game balance, but right now we do not have that.

I do.

Not this again.
We don't need something that is basically using magic variables and expect the results to mean anything.

You neglect the essential... I DID made an entire techtree mod based solely on those results and it seem more balanced than 3.1

I think Iluvalar's method was not so bad. I think his method can be used as useful addition, but need to uncover all "magic" coefficients and comment out all formulas. Every each number must be uncovered and clear.

sure, what is left is :

A) sr^(1.4142) instead of sr^2 for the impact of the splash range. This is due to the fact that one can't expect to find the same density of units the more he increase his range. The amount of unit doesn't quite increase proportionality to the area of effect. I know for sure this value is between 1 and 2. But I have no mathematical proof for my guess on the geometric mean of the extreme of 2^.5 .

B)1-.996^(r^2). The modifier for the weapon range where r is the range of the weapon. I derived the formula, I know it's the right one. However, I have no proof that 99.6% is the right probability to NOT find an enemy on a tile around the unit. I only know, by trial and error that it's higher than 99.5% and lower than 99.7%

C) 2.5 : The penetration factor
D) .6 The no fire on move factor
E) 5/6^.5 (91%) the proportion of non-vtols .
F) I still struggle to find out the exact mean of some value given a specific time frame. (armor, hp, etc.) But I know where they come from and I can make some good approximate. They are no "magic" numbers of any sort.

Everything else is pure math. Please note that weapons from close range gap (6-8 tiles) and no splash contain NONE of those magic number. So I can be 100% positive of that affirmation : Nothing but ROF changes will keep the balance right if you play with accuracy.