Jump to content

Data Collection Complete - 100 Matches Of Mgs + Slas/flamer (50-50 Each)


28 replies to this topic

#1 Alternate22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • The Resolute
  • The Resolute
  • 25 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

NOTE: POST HAS BEEN UPDATED, SCROLL DOWN TO SEE ANALYSIS

As requested in my other thread, I decided to undergo a data collection challenge. 100 Matches of Machine Guns data, to see just how viable they are. After not 100, but 102 grueling challenges, using only a mix of MG + Flamers for the first 50 matches (before the recent 5th June Patch mind you) and MG + SLAS for the remaining 52 matches, I have finally managed to collate all the data.

Given I'm exhausted for now and dont have much time, I will put up the data for people to examine and pick at (including my inane comments), while I will conduct a full results and analysis of Machine Gun issues a bit later. The stats can be found here:

https://dl.dropboxus...MG%20Stats.xlsx

A brief overview (note, some figures are not 100% accurate, as some stats were lost to disconnects - but these are barely 2-3% of the total cases at most):

Total MG Damage for all matches: 17,353
Total MG Rounds hit: 220,860
Total damage over 100 rounds: 23,137
Total SLAS Damage for 50 matches: 4,497
Total number of components destroyed: 129
Total number of kills: 90
Total number of Assists: 190
Total number of wins: 51
Total number of disconnects: 26

Average match damage: 227
Average Component Destruction: 1
Average Number of Kills: 1
Average Number of Assists: 2
Average Total MG damage: 170
Average Per MG Damage: 28

Edit: I also have all the screenshots for almost every match sans 10%, but do not know where to upload the file, as it is 500+ MB. I will try to put this package up on Google drive so people can take a look at it if they wish to see general placements and corroborate with the excel file.

My Analysis at last:

As promised, OP shall deliver. Also editing this in the first post. Took me a bit of while due to a busy weekend, but here are my conclusions after playtesting:

A) Machine Guns, in Theory, are viable Ballistic Sidegrades to Small Lasers.

Before you go all nuts, let me show the following image:
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing


As you can see, in theory, Machine Guns are very much similar to Small Lasers. They do almost the same amount of damage, but trade that tiny bit in exchange for no heat and a higher effective range (which can mean the difference between getting away or ending up a smoking hulk). Add to that their extreme crits and they become actually very decent alternatives. The reason they aren't a sidegrade is best illustrated in point B.

:) Machine Guns, in Practice, are only viable Ballistic sidegrades to Small Lasers in very few cases.

These cases include: having enough 50+ CT armor, having 3+ Ballistic slots, lower speed than 100KPH. The reason can be described by the following image:

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

As you can see from the reality of the situation, the ineffectiveness of Machine Guns currently stems, like LRMs before, from a bug.

Considering this, the average of my weapons - 170 MG damage per match - is actually very much less than the average it should theoretically be. Had I been doing full 0.8 damage, the average would have been much, much higher - around 210.8 per match. Component destruction would also be much higher, as the crits are dependent on fire rates - fire less, fewer chances for crits, less crit damage.

The fire rate bug has been proven time and again by many forum-goers and in the threadnaught, but the fire rate bug is only one of three glaring problems. These other two problems include:

1) The visual projectile speed is too low

An edit: many thanks to stjobe for corroborating this information and confirming. The visual effect of machine gun profiles do not in fact match up with their actual mechanics. This makes it very confusing on if you are in fact hitting something at especially high pings of 200+. It is also visually confusing and really needs to be fixed to better assist in aiming and more skillful use of the weapons. Visually fixing it would additionally allow for a better new player experience since it will at least not confuse newbies who aren't aware of the actual mechanics - especially since several trial mechs do have MGs as default loadouts.

2) The cone of fire needs to be removed.

I was arguing for a reduction a while back; but upon playing 100 games I've come to realize that Machine Guns can be very good high-skill weapons. The problem is that in their current iteration with the cone of spread, you are not rewarded for good aim. In fact, you can be dead on tracking a Raven's legs, but only half your shots will hit.

Small mechs with small bodies are actually very hard to hit - especially those with leg and arm joints close to each other, like in the case of the Commando. This is another thing that basically makes using Mgs on lights useless - given many fights end up you vs another light, any damage you do is spread out too far while the enemy can return fire easily to specific components. Add onto this the fact that projectile speeds are low and you can understand why the spider 5K is ineffective.

Conclusions on MGs:

These three problems of fire rate, projectile speed and cone of fire means that the only mech where it is viable is the Jager DD, which carries 6 of them, resulting in a DPS of .56 x 6 = 3.36; slightly higher than an AC5. It also explains why in my data collection, MG-Small Laser ratios were so varying. Machine Guns were only effective against large mechs with large central hitboxes, like Atlai, Dragons, Awesomes, Catapharacts, other Jaegers, etc, because all my fire could be easily focused - and it is against these opponents that you see MG-SLAS ratios converging.

Against smaller opponents like Jenners, Commandos and esepcially Centurions, where the CT was smaller or like Stalkers and Catapults, where its rounded and with the hitboxes of the side torsos nearby, you see far less damage because a lot of my shots simply went into thin air or scattered accross multiple components instead of being applied - in these cases, the ratios diverged. Additionally, through my 100 rounds of testing, I have had only a few cases of ammunition explosions. In fact, I can count the number on one hand. This suggests the crit mechanics aren't that useful and the chance of ammo to explode is far, far too low.

Fixing these three problems would finally, finally bring MGs in line to Small Lasers, making them actual viable weapons on Spider 5Ks and Cicadas. Two Ballistics slots and the investment of 2 tons would actually be viable, given you get two small-laser equivalent that can crit effectively and have decent engagement ranges.

Conclusions on Flamers:

I also played 50 matches using the flamers and found them to be, by far, the worst weapons in the game.

The reason is that Flamers raise up heat on an enemy mech with a cap of 90%. The problem is this cap is only on the enemy mech - not on you. Since the application of heat is very, very slow it means that by the time you get the enemy mech up to 90%, you will have shut down from it. The only use I found for flamers is as a way to cloud enemy vision completely - but to do this required getting in their front arcs, which means you can be hit with their weapons anyway. Their short range also made them worse than small lasers.

In addition, heat inflicted seems to be almost entirely independent of the current heat of the mech - i.e. instead of multipying a mech's current heat level or raising based on that, its an aditional effect based entirely on the flamethrower itself. This is flawed in many ways as it means it doesnt matter how many Alphas an enemy tosses on you, you only raise heat depending on what your flamers do. You dont even stop the cooling of another mech like you used to I suspect - but have no way to verify this.

I really hate to be the one to say this, but the entire flamer system eneds to be reworked from the ground up again. How, I have no idea, but the current iteration simply does not work.

Edited by Alternate22, 10 June 2013 - 04:32 AM.


#2 The Cheese

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,482 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:16 PM

Do you hate yourself or something?

#3 Xiang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 236 posts
  • LocationTrying desperately to get behind you for an Alpha Strike!

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:20 PM

Flamer info missing....

Now to go back to read the other thread to see WHY you did this....LOL.

Xiang

#4 The Cheese

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,482 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:25 PM

Ok, that probably went across badly, but I mean, 100 + games using only those weapons? That's some ********* stuff right there.

Edit: Mas-o-chist is censored?

Edited by The Cheese, 06 June 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#5 Ningyo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:32 PM

Impressive to do that much data collection (I say this while doing the same thing for LRMs lol, it takes forever doesn't it) will come back and view it again when you have your more indepth analysis up, from those stats though MG still looks pretty weak. Not completely unusable like before but can't see using them unless I had a few extra tons and slots with nothing to use them for on a mech.

#6 Alternate22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • The Resolute
  • The Resolute
  • 25 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:50 PM

View PostXiang, on 05 June 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

Flamer info missing....

Now to go back to read the other thread to see WHY you did this....LOL.

Xiang


I did not really collect flamer data, sorry. The reason I chose flamers at all was that so that I could have a non-damaging weapon to not really mess with the pure MG data. However, believe it or not the flamers were actually a detriment, which is why I swapped out the SLAS since its a better comparison to what MGs are supposed to represent (light, half-ton weapon).

View PostThe Cheese, on 05 June 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Ok, that probably went across badly, but I mean, 100 + games using only those weapons? That's some ********* stuff right there.


The only thing I can say is...SCIENCE! Demands sacrifices, sometimes. Besides, the humiliation of killing people with just Flamers + MGs or MGs + SLAS? The tears are wonderful.

I am working on the full analysis and will update my OP with it. I'll be including some pictures too, so lots of photochopping to do!

Edited by Alternate22, 05 June 2013 - 11:51 PM.


#7 Jman5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,189 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:20 AM

NIce. I'm tempted to get a jager just to mess around with 6 machine guns.

#8 General Taskeen

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,594 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:25 AM

View PostAlternate22, on 05 June 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

testing



I hope you were testing stock configs. Always start at the point of 2 MG's or 1 Flamer only. The precedent is past games. Load up MW3 for a comparison test.

#9 GingerBang

    Dezgra

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • LocationThe Airport Hilton

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:56 AM

It is interesting that you did this, but i find these results about 80% irrelevant, unless you also test it in a team environment where you have 1 mech using ac20's or something along that line stripping armor for you. MG's look weak because they suck against armor. They rock against internals. People need to start using teamwork and stop calling what is supposed to be the least effective weapon in the game "weak."

#10 General Taskeen

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,594 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

I don't need team work to use my small laser GingerBang. It just kills things. Also this game supports solo play. And 2 MG's certainly didn't require team work to kill a Mech in MW3, the MG's just killed the Mech outright, no other weapon assistance required. In comparison, it is actually very weak in this game. Like ultimate weaksauce.

#11 Caviel

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

View PostGingerBang, on 06 June 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

MG's look weak because they suck against armor. They rock against internals. People need to start using teamwork and stop calling what is supposed to be the least effective weapon in the game "weak."


Teamwork or the lack of has nothing to do with it. MGs have the same issue they have always had. Why carry a weapon that is only marginally useful when armor is gone, versus taking other weapons or items to support said weapons (ammo, heat sinks, etc) that can destroy the armor and internal structure entirely and take all the components with it?

Vastly simplified: Destroyed side torso and arm > destroyed component in side torso. Dead mechs > disabled mechs.

Even ammo explosions offer no benefit because you have the same 10% chance of ammo explosion if the ammo critical is destroyed by critical hits, or loss of the entire section.

It isn't that machine guns are bad, per say, they are just so far down on the priority list of what I would put on a mech, they will never be added to my builds.

Even the numbers back this up from these trial runs:

Quote

Average Component Destruction: 1

Seems low, considering component destruction bonuses are supposed to be a feature of the machine gun. This could be relating to destroying a section of the mech and is not including actual critical destruction.

Quote

Average Number of Kills: 1
Average Number of Assists: 2


This indicates a pilot issue, continual rapid death, or the fact that you have to stand there pumping MG rounds into things for longer periods of time for them to be effective and can't "touch everything" as a result. The combination of these two stats should be much closer to 8 when you are a major contributor to the success of your team via combat. In other words, you may not get the kill shot, although you did a measurable amount of damage to everyone.

Quote

Average Total MG damage: 170

As a comparison, most Assault mechs will hit 300-500 at a minimum. This isn't a horrible damage total, although easily matched and beaten by an energy and optionally missile based build.


Summary: The tests didn't really tell me anything new; the numbers just help confirm my thoughts on machine guns. It would be interesting to see another series of matches in the similar vein using more widely accepted/used builds for a direct comparison.

#12 Ningyo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:38 PM

Ok a question for you OP, If you made a ER-PPC, or PPC:
Jaggermech JM6-DD do you use 6 MG or take something else (gauss, ac2, etc)
Dragon DRG-5N do you take 3 MG or something else
Hunchback HBK-4G do you take 3 MG or something else (AC20 possible here)
Spider 5K 4 MG, or 3 double heatsinks?

Too be fair even if you say yes to all of these it leaves MG in a very niche role, but still usable. If you say no then MG are still trash since these would probably be their most effective possible chassis.

#13 Trauglodyte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Talon
  • Phoenix Talon
  • 3,564 posts
  • LocationThat's no moon!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:52 PM

So, you averaged 170 damage per match in a Heavy mech with 6 MGs. Using the 6S with only 4, you would have done 112 damage per match. Now, assuming that you didn't get punched in the face using something much lighter, you're basically telling a future Flea driver or a current Spider 5k/Cicada 3C that they can pretty much right off ever breaking 200 damage per match or doing anything of any real value even though they just invested 3 tons minimum on their mech. I say this because those two chassis have only 1 energy hard point which means that they can invest in a small energy weapon to go along with the sad MGs or they can utilize a ranged energy weapon (Lrg Laser or PPC) and then have to choose whether they want to stay at range, thus negating the 3 tons invested in MGs, or negate the range advantage of the heavy energy weapons, of which they invested added weight to get the longer range, just so that they can use the sad MGs.

I appreciate your testing and the findings are about what I would expect. What you're telling everyone is that MGs are terrible and are only comically relevant on the only mech variant in the game that can mount 6 of them while having enough speed and armor to live long enough to use them.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 06 June 2013 - 12:54 PM.


#14 Alternate22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • The Resolute
  • The Resolute
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:32 PM

As promised, OP shall deliver. Also editing this in the first post. Took me a bit of while due to a busy weekend, but here are my conclusions after playtesting:

A) Machine Guns, in Theory, are viable Ballistic Sidegrades to Small Lasers.

Before you go all nuts, let me show the following image:
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing


As you can see, in theory, Machine Guns are very much similar to Small Lasers. They do almost the same amount of damage, but trade that tiny bit in exchange for no heat and a higher effective range (which can mean the difference between getting away or ending up a smoking hulk). Add to that their extreme crits and they become actually very decent alternatives. The reason they aren't a sidegrade is best illustrated in point B.

;) Machine Guns, in Practice, are only viable Ballistic sidegrades to Small Lasers in very few cases.

These cases include: having enough 50+ CT armor, having 3+ Ballistic slots, lower speed than 100KPH. The reason can be described by the following image:

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

As you can see from the reality of the situation, the ineffectiveness of Machine Guns currently stems, like LRMs before, from a bug.

Considering this, the average of my weapons - 170 MG damage per match - is actually very much less than the average it should theoretically be. Had I been doing full 0.8 damage, the average would have been much, much higher - around 210.8 per match. Component destruction would also be much higher, as the crits are dependent on fire rates - fire less, fewer chances for crits, less crit damage.

The fire rate bug has been proven time and again by many forum-goers and in the threadnaught, but the fire rate bug is only one of three glaring problems. These other two problems include:

1) The visual projectile speed is too low

An edit: many thanks to stjobe for corroborating this information and confirming. The visual effect of machine gun profiles do not in fact match up with their actual mechanics. This makes it very confusing on if you are in fact hitting something at especially high pings of 200+. It is also visually confusing and really needs to be fixed to better assist in aiming and more skillful use of the weapons. Visually fixing it would additionally allow for a better new player experience since it will at least not confuse newbies who aren't aware of the actual mechanics - especially since several trial mechs do have MGs as default loadouts.

(Note: the next two paragraphs are now old, inaccurate)

Despite 100 games with these weapons, the actual nature of machine guns - i.e. are they are stream "hitscan" weapon or actually arc like true projectiles is a mystery due to my high ping and the relatively short range. However, the fact is t hat aiming these weapons in conjunction with small lasers was very difficult, because it often - visually at least - came down to a choice of hitting with one or the other.

The slow visual speed is what reduces the ability to aim at speeds higher than 100 KPH, making them unviable especially for light on light fights, where a Jenner can actually outrun your bullets in some cases. Even if MGs are a hitscan weapon, their projectile speed needs to be increased drastically, as this directly impacts the new player experience as several trial mechs do have Machine Guns including the Catapult K2.

2) The cone of fire needs to be removed.

I was arguing for a reduction a while back; but upon playing 100 games I've come to realize that Machine Guns can be very good high-skill weapons. The problem is that in their current iteration with the cone of spread, you are not rewarded for good aim. In fact, you can be dead on tracking a Raven's legs, but only half your shots will hit.

Small mechs with small bodies are actually very hard to hit - especially those with leg and arm joints close to each other, like in the case of the Commando. This is another thing that basically makes using Mgs on lights useless - given many fights end up you vs another light, any damage you do is spread out too far while the enemy can return fire easily to specific components. Add onto this the fact that projectile speeds are low and you can understand why the spider 5K is ineffective.

Conclusions on MGs:

These three problems of fire rate, projectile speed and cone of fire means that the only mech where it is viable is the Jager DD, which carries 6 of them, resulting in a DPS of .56 x 6 = 3.36; slightly higher than an AC5. It also explains why in my data collection, MG-Small Laser ratios were so varying. Machine Guns were only effective against large mechs with large central hitboxes, like Atlai, Dragons, Awesomes, Catapharacts, other Jaegers, etc, because all my fire could be easily focused - and it is against these opponents that you see MG-SLAS ratios converging.

Against smaller opponents like Jenners, Commandos and esepcially Centurions, where the CT was smaller or like Stalkers and Catapults, where its rounded and with the hitboxes of the side torsos nearby, you see far less damage because a lot of my shots simply went into thin air or scattered accross multiple components instead of being applied - in these cases, the ratios diverged. Additionally, through my 100 rounds of testing, I have had only a few cases of ammunition explosions. In fact, I can count the number on one hand. This suggests the crit mechanics aren't that useful and the chance of ammo to explode is far, far too low.

Fixing these three problems would finally, finally bring MGs in line to Small Lasers, making them actual viable weapons on Spider 5Ks and Cicadas. Two Ballistics slots and the investment of 2 tons would actually be viable, given you get two small-laser equivalent that can crit effectively and have decent engagement ranges.

Conclusions on Flamers:

I also played 50 matches using the flamers and found them to be, by far, the worst weapons in the game.

The reason is that Flamers raise up heat on an enemy mech with a cap of 90%. The problem is this cap is only on the enemy mech - not on you. Since the application of heat is very, very slow it means that by the time you get the enemy mech up to 90%, you will have shut down from it. The only use I found for flamers is as a way to cloud enemy vision completely - but to do this required getting in their front arcs, which means you can be hit with their weapons anyway. Their short range also made them worse than small lasers.

In addition, heat inflicted seems to be almost entirely independent of the current heat of the mech - i.e. instead of multipying a mech's current heat level or raising based on that, its an aditional effect based entirely on the flamethrower itself. This is flawed in many ways as it means it doesnt matter how many Alphas an enemy tosses on you, you only raise heat depending on what your flamers do. You dont even stop the cooling of another mech like you used to I suspect - but have no way to verify this.

I really hate to be the one to say this, but the entire flamer system eneds to be reworked from the ground up again. How, I have no idea, but the current iteration simply does not work.

Edited by Alternate22, 10 June 2013 - 04:34 AM.


#15 Victor Morson

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 6,269 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 09 June 2013 - 08:04 PM

That is probably the most reasonable and well-thought out data collection I've seen here.

Usually it's done based on some single fundamental flaw but this really checks out. I still feel bad for the guy who spent a week gathering LRM data in the Testing Grounds only to find out the TG are busted.

#16 Mechwarrior Mousse

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 1,349 posts
  • LocationTerra, North American Continent

Posted 09 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

I salute you for actually testing this stuff. More of this kind of testing needs to be done for any sensible balance discussions to be had.

+1000

#17 Deathlike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 14,131 posts
  • LocationWherever Badges of Shame Exist

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:26 PM

OP, you need a hug.

View PostGingerBang, on 06 June 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

It is interesting that you did this, but i find these results about 80% irrelevant, unless you also test it in a team environment where you have 1 mech using ac20's or something along that line stripping armor for you. MG's look weak because they suck against armor. They rock against internals. People need to start using teamwork and stop calling what is supposed to be the least effective weapon in the game "weak."


Since when did this need teamplay? Every weapon with the exception of LRMs and LRM enhancing equipment (TAG/NARC) does not require a teammate to function better with. So, whatever you just said is as useful/useless as the MGs you are defending.

Killing a side torso completely functions better with direct damage weapons than MGs. Destroying a HBK-4P is easier if you remove the side/right torso, potentially removing one additional laser in the right arm, instead of taking its sweet time eating the 6 med lasers+2 DHS that are usually housed in the RT.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 June 2013 - 09:28 PM.


#18 stjobe

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 7,341 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 10 June 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostAlternate22, on 09 June 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

1) The visual projectile speed is too low

Despite 100 games with these weapons, the actual nature of machine guns - i.e. are they are stream "hitscan" weapon or actually arc like true projectiles is a mystery due to my high ping and the relatively short range. However, the fact is t hat aiming these weapons in conjunction with small lasers was very difficult, because it often - visually at least - came down to a choice of hitting with one or the other.

The slow visual speed is what reduces the ability to aim at speeds higher than 100 KPH, making them unviable especially for light on light fights, where a Jenner can actually outrun your bullets in some cases. Even if MGs are a hitscan weapon, their projectile speed needs to be increased drastically, as this directly impacts the new player experience as several trial mechs do have Machine Guns including the Catapult K2.

I'm amazed that you've been playing 100 matches with the MG without noting that the visuals are completely disconnected from what's actually happening damage-wise.

MG's have no flight time. None at all. They hit *instantly*. You can easily check this by firing at a target 200m away. If they had a flight time of 100m/s, it would take 2 seconds for the enemy paperdoll to start flashing. This does not happen, the paperdoll starts flashing the instant you pull the trigger.

Furthermore, a Jenner couldn't outrun a MG bullet even if they did have the projectile speed that's listed, seeing as that is 100m/s, or 360kph.

But that's just for the visual component (if even that). The actual damage is a stream that has no travel time as per above, so asking for a projectile speed increase is pointless. What you should be asking for is a re-design of the MG as a proper ballistic weapon.

That, or that they couple that visuals to the actual mechanics. But a re-design as a ballistic weapon would make more sense, and would most likely make the weapon much easier to balance as well.

Edit: Just to be clear, I do agree with your assessment that the rate of fire needs to be fixed, and that spread needs to be removed.

Edited by stjobe, 10 June 2013 - 03:18 AM.


#19 Alternate22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • The Resolute
  • The Resolute
  • 25 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 04:27 AM

View Poststjobe, on 10 June 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

I'm amazed that you've been playing 100 matches with the MG without noting that the visuals are completely disconnected from what's actually happening damage-wise.

MG's have no flight time. None at all. They hit *instantly*. You can easily check this by firing at a target 200m away. If they had a flight time of 100m/s, it would take 2 seconds for the enemy paperdoll to start flashing. This does not happen, the paperdoll starts flashing the instant you pull the trigger.

Furthermore, a Jenner couldn't outrun a MG bullet even if they did have the projectile speed that's listed, seeing as that is 100m/s, or 360kph.

But that's just for the visual component (if even that). The actual damage is a stream that has no travel time as per above, so asking for a projectile speed increase is pointless. What you should be asking for is a re-design of the MG as a proper ballistic weapon.

That, or that they couple that visuals to the actual mechanics. But a re-design as a ballistic weapon would make more sense, and would most likely make the weapon much easier to balance as well.

Edit: Just to be clear, I do agree with your assessment that the rate of fire needs to be fixed, and that spread needs to be removed.


The huge reason I had no method to corroborate this is that my ping is 250+ on average. At those pings, even laser weapons are not hitscan (HSR helps, but not as much as one would like - it's been very buggy lately) and require some small lead time. Couple it with the disconnected visuals and mechanics (and the fact that I'm using actual laser weapons alongside) and it is very, very hard to tell.

It is however, very happy to see that it is as I suspected: primarily a visual affect rather than an actual physical one. However this just means that it should be fixed. The visuals need to match the mechanics so that new players - especially in trials that have MGs - aren't confused on the matter. It will also help greatly in general play, as the instinct is to try and arc forwards when the MG arcs. Doesnt matter how experienced once is with it - its still an instinct that can take over sometimes.

I have edited my OP with the corrections - thank you for the updated information.

Edited by Alternate22, 10 June 2013 - 04:37 AM.


#20 GingerBang

    Dezgra

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • LocationThe Airport Hilton

Posted 10 June 2013 - 08:31 AM

View PostGeneral Taskeen, on 06 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't need team work to use my small laser GingerBang. It just kills things. Also this game supports solo play. And 2 MG's certainly didn't require team work to kill a Mech in MW3, the MG's just killed the Mech outright, no other weapon assistance required. In comparison, it is actually very weak in this game. Like ultimate weaksauce.



Feels much stronger to me in this game than in MW3, it only requires you taking the armor off first, then bam, crit-seekers.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users