24 replies to this topic

[Monky]

GAUSS RIFLE 3 matches 87 fired 47 hit 54.02% accuracy 00:11:49 play time equipped 784 damage
MACHINE GUN 54 matches 23,792 fired 15,521 hit 65.24% accuracy 04:53:06 play time equipped 595 damage

3 games of using Gauss since stats started being tracked; 754 damage. 54 games of using machine guns; 595 damage since damage was tracked.

On top of this, live tests of actual mg component destruction is alarmingly low (aka not at all what certain propagandists have posted in their videos). At best, I am destroying a single weapon in a section before completely removing it with the next attack from real weapons.

This is highlighted by the Jagermech with which I've found myself stripping all ballistics off and just loading heatsinks/SRM's(on the A variant)/PPC's/Large Lasers. The only viable build other than that being dual AC20 (which I've encountered but haven't tried yet). Sure, some of the builds are -fun- from the pure boom boom bang bang perspective, but it's just ridiculously ineffective.

Let's do some simple math here; 595 / 54 = 11 (11 damage per round of MG use). 784 / 3 = 261.3 for gauss use. Now, tonnage comes into play. I am going to treat Gauss as 30 half tons and machine guns as 1 half ton because 0.5 tons wrecks simple division. Basically, 11/1 = 11, 261/30 = 8.7. Seems like Gauss is worth far less than MG right? Well, think again - here comes the ammo! I have run 2x MG and 4x MG both with 1 ton of ammo, and I have ran 2xgauss with 4 tons ammo. Here are the refined tonnage equivalents;

MG; 11 / 3 half-tons (1 mg + 1 ton ammo) = 3.66
Gauss; 261.3 / 34 = 7.67 (1 gauss + 2 tons ammo)

However without ammo, a ballistic weapon is useless. Let's look at a static 1 ton of ammo per weapon (more than enough for MG as i've never ran out, and laughably low for a Gauss as I've always ran out with 2 tons per gauss rifle unless I goof up and die early)


MG; 11 / 3 half-tons (1 mg + 1 ton ammo) = 3.66
Gauss; 261.3 / 32 = 8.16 (1 gauss + 1 tons ammo)


Here it is, on its face, in real gameplay terms. Not only are MG's spray weapons that can't be focused on a component unless the enemy is stationary (and in range), the Gauss rifle is pinpoint to boot, and does about 2.25x the effectiveness while having a comparatively ludicrous maximum range. This is merely ONE example based on the stats I'm providing.

Edited by Monky, 01 April 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[General Taskeen]

You're a brave soul to use MG's for 54 Matches.

I think you'll get more telling results using the SL though. The disparity is quite hilarious between the two.

[Monky]

Yes, yes it is.

[Kmieciu]

I used small lasers in 5 rounds and did 238 damage. That's 47,6 damage per round and I treat small lasers as a filler backup weapon.

I also used machine guns - 11 rounds 77 damage. That's 7 damage per round.


That illustrates how inferior the mechine guns are.

Edited by Kmieciu, 01 April 2013 - 11:00 PM.

[Alternate22]

I just wanted to reply to this thread as ive exclusively used the 6mg dd for many, many matches. my current stats for this weapon are 138 Matches, 229,502 fired, 147,874 hit, 64.32% Hit, 11:21:09 equipped and 5,417 damage (Ill post screenshots as proof when i get to aacomputer). Basically the jist of my experience is that they are a very niche weapon. They are also the only ballistics that are viable at pings over 300 And at brawling range.

Buffing them to even just double damage would give eu/Non-atlantic players more choices on the loadouts they can take and use, especially until hsr comes to ballistics weapons.

[Solis Obscuri]

Wow, MGs are clearly doing to much damage if they are competing with Gauss Rifles that well.

MGs need a nerf.

[MustrumRidcully]

Monky, on 01 April 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

GAUSS RIFLE 3 matches 87 fired 47 hit 54.02% accuracy 00:11:49 play time equipped 784 damage
MACHINE GUN 54 matches 23,792 fired 15,521 hit 65.24% accuracy 04:53:06 play time equipped 595 damage

3 games of using Gauss since stats started being tracked; 754 damage. 54 games of using machine guns; 595 damage since damage was tracked.

On top of this, live tests of actual mg component destruction is alarmingly low (aka not at all what certain propagandists have posted in their videos). At best, I am destroying a single weapon in a section before completely removing it with the next attack from real weapons.

Those propagandists made videos when the crit chance of the MG was erroneously at 80 %. And even then no one a tiny minority considered them worth the effort.


As long as that tiny minority considers the PGI game design team, that seems to be all that matters, however.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 April 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[stjobe]

Alternate22, on 01 April 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

6mg dd [...] 138 Matches, [...] and 5,417 damage [...] Basically the jist of my experience is that they are a very niche weapon.

That's 39.2 damage per match - from 6xMG.
6.54 damage per match per MG.

That's not a niche weapon, that's a joke.

[Alternate22]

stjobe, on 02 April 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

That's 39.2 damage per match - from 6xMG.
6.54 damage per match per MG.

That's not a niche weapon, that's a joke.

To be fair, matches with the j-dd Were only around 115 Of those. Take off another 10-20 For experimentation and you have 90 matches. Even then though i would agree, thedamage would be around your estimate for most matches. I run with two ER large lasers which in 80 or so matches (Most in the jaeger) Have 15,000 damage in comparison.

Edited by Alternate22, 02 April 2013 - 04:31 AM.

[Monky]

Alternate22, on 02 April 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

To be fair, matches with the j-dd Were only around 115 Of those. Take off another 10-20 For experimentation and you have 90 matches. Even then though i would agree, thedamage would be around your estimate for most matches. I run with two ER large lasers which in 80 or so matches (Most in the jaeger) Have 15,000 damage in comparison.

What matters is mech effectiveness per round. I imagine you're using ER Large/ERPPC/PPC as the energy weapons, yes? Well, take out the MG's plus ammo and you've got room for at least 2 more heatsinks and more armor/engine (an upgrade of which can possible allow you another heatsink slot in the engine). I can practically guarantee you your dps and damage done will be higher per round by replacing the MG's with heatsinks. When mounting a weapon is less effective than mounting a heatsink in all cases, there is no further debate. It's broken.

When it comes to making an efficient mech, it makes 0 sense to include MG's, you are in 100% of cases better off putting the weight/crits to anything else. This is a 100% broken weapon system.

MustrumRidcully, on 02 April 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Those propagandists made videos when the crit chance of the MG was erroneously at 80 %. And even then no one a tiny minority considered them worth the effort.


As long as that tiny minority considers the PGI game design team, that seems to be all that matters, however.

That was a thing? They were actually somewhat more competent than they are now? WTF.

[Alternate22]

Monky, on 02 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

What matters is mech effectiveness per round. I imagine you're using ER Large/ERPPC/PPC as the energy weapons, yes? Well, take out the MG's plus ammo and you've got room for at least 2 more heatsinks and more armor/engine (an upgrade of which can possible allow you another heatsink slot in the engine). I can practically guarantee you your dps and damage done will be higher per round by replacing the MG's with heatsinks. When mounting a weapon is less effective than mounting a heatsink in all cases, there is no further debate. It's broken.

When it comes to making an efficient mech, it makes 0 sense to include MG's, you are in 100% of cases better off putting the weight/crits to anything else. This is a 100% broken weapon system.

Well, the thing is in the J-DD, you only have 2 laser slots. I use ER Large specifically because they have HSR, while PPCs dont (or feel like they dont). Given its just /two/ though and I run a Standard 300 (with plenty of additional heat sinks), I actually have very high heat efficiency - so additional heat sinks give a very diminishing return compared to upping the damage potential. With a standard 300, only machine guns fit enough to give that. This is my build:

http://www.giantbomb...val/2300-7209/#

The machine guns are supplements. I've actually had kills with them while the ER Larges were recharging. However, I would very, very, very, very much love if they were actually useful supplements. I'd like to make it clear I'm not disagreeing: Machine Guns could be tons more useful than they are now even if damage was only doubled.

That is literally all it would take! Double the damage and now I'm doing 4.8 DPS instead of 2.4 - which actually brings up very close to a single AC20 worth of damage (and Dual AC20 damage if you combine the two large lasers)! It makes the J-DD reasonably competent while improving the competence of every light mech. The ideal scenario would be pushing it up to 1DPS instead of just .8 - but given the way that PGI seem to be very intolerant of touching ballistics, I have very little hope of that.

I really was hoping for ballistics rebalancing this patch, but it looks like I'm going to have to abandon my ballistics mechs now.

[General Taskeen]

A doubled MG would be the HMG, if the MG were to stay in the bad format.

The bad format 'MG' - HMG would just be 0.08 Damage for one whole extra half ton plus a decreased effective range to 60M, lol. IF LMG's and HMG's, or MGA's are to make it into the game, the current, basic MG most certainly needs to be viable in the stock configuration that appears on Mechs between 1 or 3 MG's (At most we have 2 starting stock, or say 3 on a surely to appear Mad Cat). Even without the inclusion of LMG/HMG, the MG still needs to be made more than supplemental.. The disparity between the MG/SL is just hilarious as is.

[TehSBGX]

Yep, you guys proved it. Buffing MGs needs to be done.

[White Bear 84]

Alternate22, on 01 April 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Buffing them to even just double damage would give eu/Non-atlantic players more choices on the loadouts they can take and use, especially until hsr comes to ballistics weapons.

This can be resolved by introducing a non-US server

Solis Obscuri, on 02 April 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

MGs need a nerf.

LOL

[Lord Psycho]

MGs do need a Nerf...as in the foam darts..it might actually do more damage...

[Prophet OFC]

I don't wanna play the 'Battletech Cannon' card, but I will...MGs fit on mechs aren't intended for anti-mech use AT ALL but for anti infantry/unarmored vehicle. They don't work well here because they aren't 'supposed to'.

As for making them usable in the game as the lightest ballistic option...I'd be curious to see how much crit damage they do once the armor is removed from a location...but I'm not curious enough to test it myself cuz fitting MGAs on 'mechs for use against other 'mechs is a joke anyway.

ACs fire high explosive armor pierce rounds...MGAs fire plain jane 20th century .50cal slugs...keep your MGA trash! Plain and simple, they aren't supposed to be used for mech fights

[CloaknDagger]

As usual, the problem with MWO is NOT FOLLOWING CANON.

MAKE MGs DO EQUAL DAMAGE AS AC2s!

PROBLEM SOLVED.

Prophet OFC, on 02 April 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

ACs fire high explosive armor pierce rounds...MGAs fire plain jane 20th century .50cal slugs...keep your MGA trash! Plain and simple, they aren't supposed to be used for mech fights

Nope, a machinegun is more akin to a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger.



BAHHAAAA!!!

Just kidding, an MG weighs twice as much as that gun.

Edited by CloaknDagger, 02 April 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Prophet OFC]

My bad, should've checked facts instead of going off my (bad) memory...20mm not .50

But still against even standard battlemech armor (which is a triple layer radiation treated steel, carbo-tanium diamond mesh thingy) your 20mm machine gun is like rapid fire spitwads.

[TehSBGX]

CloaknDagger, on 02 April 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

As usual, the problem with MWO is NOT FOLLOWING CANON.

MAKE MGs DO EQUAL DAMAGE AS AC2s!

PROBLEM SOLVED.




Nope, a machinegun is more akin to a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger.



BAHHAAAA!!!

Just kidding, an MG weighs twice as much as that gun.

This is making me think... The Size of a RAC 5 must be terrifying.

[Iscarius]

I just did a test on the testing grounds. It took me 2 minutes and 35 seconds firing two MGs at point blank range to kill a Commando, without necessarily focusing on one area.

Why are they even in the game if they're so laughably weak?