119 replies to this topic

[101011]

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

33 damage per match is not bad for the craptastic MG.

Well, divide 33/4 because I had 4 linked guns....and you get 8.25 per gun.

[coolnames]

MGs blow up enemy guns tho, hommie Gs!

[101011]

Ehhh, not really. When I played, they blew up .7 guns per match....not really all too useful.

[Jimskiavic]

It's all very well and good for the Devs to talk up how great MGs are at critting internals (which they do seem to be), but the problem is that (as far as I can tell) they don't crit engines (nor gyros, actuators, etc - which nothing damages at the moment). i.e. They're horrible at actually killing Mechs.

I'm fine with the 'no damage to armour' thing (much as it's not TT or lore accurate) as part of making it a bit of a different weapon, but if an engine is exposed, it should be able to actually do something to it.

For what it's worth:
88 matches; 27381 hits; 1108 damage; 8:51:28 time equipped

[Tickdoff Tank]

Praetor Shepard, on 08 April 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

So it seems that my DPS is 0.24, with a Damage of 11 per match with MG's.

Small Lasers are at a DPS of 15.62, with a Damage of 57 per match.

Medium have a DPS of 28.27, with a Damage of 112 per match.


What surprised me was when I tried calculating the DPS and Damage per match of my other weapons, can a DPS of 138.13 be right for an AC20? As to the top DPS weapons I've used, my Top 5 are the AC20, Gauss, AC10, PPC and LB 10-X AC, and I only used the LB 10-X in three matches, so Large Pulse Lasers were 6th. Again, I dunno if my math is really off or not, so if I did goof somewhere, let me know. Here's a screenshot of the SpreadSheet: Link

138.13 damage per match with the AC20 is only hitting with 7 shots (approx.) Not unreasonable.

The damage of the ML is about what I would expect. It is the most ubiquitous weapon in MWO, and for a good reason. It is solid at a good range, it is light, does excellent damage and most mechs can mount several.

[Juicebox12]

MACHINE GUN 43 75,695 40,766 53.86% 03:40:51 1,607
14 ish dmg per round? It is sort of useful but i wouldn't be opposed to a buff..

[Fishbulb333]

Weapon Matches Fired Hit Accuracy Time Equip. Damage MACHINE GUN 37 70,636 38,335 54.27 03:15:06 1,599

Think I've only ever used machine guns while levelling through spider 5K,, had myself fooled into thinking the damage was a little higher, several of those 37 matches I had 400++ damage, but after looking at these stats, clearly the large laser did almost all of the work.. Average MG damage per match = ....43... They need tweaking, really.

[Trauglodyte]

Small Laser: 23 matches, 145 fired, 95 hit at 65.52% accuracy and 143 damage; Machine Gun: 24 matches, 6764 fired, 3960 hit for a 58.55% accuracy and 146 damage.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Mine stats for MG:

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 08 April 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

138.13 damage per match with the AC20 is only hitting with 7 shots (approx.) Not unreasonable.

The damage of the ML is about what I would expect. It is the most ubiquitous weapon in MWO, and for a good reason. It is solid at a good range, it is light, does excellent damage and most mechs can mount several.

Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes more sense to see these kinds of numbers, compared to something like Smurfy's Weapon Chart, on his website.

At any rate, I really hope the Dev's pay attention to this sort of discrepancy with stats from actual weapon usage, and at least give MG's a functional buff.

[Tarys]

Don´t use the "little ones" that often (mostly on my founders hunch because i can spare the tonnage) but ...


Weapon Equip: Machine Gun
Matches: 10
Fired: 2.243
Hit: 1.816
Accuracy: 80.96%
Time Equip:00:38:48
Damage: 141

That would leave me with 14.1 dps per match.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Bump, we need more people to list their MG stats. Please.

[Lucy Cameron]

Weapon________Matches_____Fired______Hit____ Accuracy_____Time Equip.____Damage
MACHINE GUN____17________12,841_____6,475___50.42%______01:35:24______218

Edited by Crypt0Kn1ght, 08 April 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 08 April 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

With the latest Ask the Devs 35 - Answers! we got told that the MG is fine where it is right now:



Personally, I find this so far detached from the realities of the game I'm gobsmacked.

So, in an effort to find out if it's just me that sucks or if it is indeed so that it is the MG that sucks, let's see your MG stats. Here's mine:



Those stats were all from running a 4 MG SDR-5K from purchase through Basic.

Damage per match: 18.74
Damage per match per MG: 4.68

Incidentally, with my stats the "devastating effect" of a mythical 6 MG Spider would be 28.11 damage to the back of an Atlas...

So what's your MG stats?

EDIT: Please include your damage per match score; just divide total damage (last number) by matches played (first number). It's an eye-opener, hopefully.

EDIT 2: Also of interest is your effective DPS with the MG. In theory it should do 0.4 DPS, but how much can you make it do? Divide your total damage by shots fired, and then multiply by 10 and you get the answer. Mine is 0.18, or not even half the theoretical DPS.

You won't convince them with that. They already know that the Machine Gun doesn't deal much damage.

You have to show them that their way they believe the Machine Gun was "made useful" (aka crit-seeking) is not practically relevant.

Thankfully, they don't have a way to track this stat anywhere, so we'll never be able to prove that. We can only hope that they noticed that Machine Guns are not employed often, especially not in high ELO rankings.

Of course, just read this single sentence:

Quote

A: Partly due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules, partially due to how we chose to make it useful.

No, PGI, it is not at all due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules. Machine Guns in TT deal 2 points of damage, same as the AC/2. It is all your design decisions that make it irrelevant against armour. You didn't inflict the same fate on the AC/2, after all.

Either they are arguing in bad faith, or they are just not capable of understanding their own game mechanics.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 April 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[Dead Fury]

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I suck at screenshots and cropping.

24 games with MGs. 34,663 fired. 15,686 hit. 45.25% hit rate. 607 total damage.

25.291 per match. Which is 0.0387 per round fired.

I designed and created a program just for you. http://www.snippingtoolplusplus.co.nf
pretty much does everything for you, including uploading the image and give you a link to share it with. enjoy.

Edited by Unstruck Fury, 08 April 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[Stargoat]

I haven't used the MG much since the weapon stats started to be tracked, as I had already finished up with my Spider K.

That was easily the most painful 'mech to go through basics and elite with, though. MGs desperately need a buff, and it beggars belief to see PGI essentially say 'working as intended'. Well, your intentions must be from the bizarro world of weapon balance. The MG is less than useless, and could be buffed up to 4x its damage before even being considered in any way overpowered.

Even looking at it on a damage per tonne basis, the MG has roughly half the potential damage/tonne of any ballistic, and it takes MUCH longer to reach that damage than any other, and at a much closer range, and with great innacuracy.

Being a crit seeker is fine and all, but that doesn't help much when you need to bust through armour first. Not every 'mech has the luxury of carrying multiple high damage weapons - and if they did, in many cases, simply finishing off the component would be a better use of the player's game time and 'mech tonnage than using MGs.

Please, see reason on this issue.

[DCLXVI]

0 - 0 - 0 - 0:00:02seconds

[MadPanda]

PGI already has everyone of our stats on the MG's and assuming based on those stats they still said "Working as intented". They are baboons plain and simple. This thread won't convince them.

[Byk]

Well with MW:O's machine guns, I think increasing damage would be a bad idea. However, increasing range and further increasing damage to internals (even higher crit chance) might work.

Or switching to the machine gun array like MW4 had. Those were pretty nifty and I could see them making the Spider, Cicada, and those other silly chassis that have a few ballistic hardpoints like that much more useful.

Edited by Byk, 08 April 2013 - 11:28 PM.

[Jungle Rhino]

MACHINE GUN 44 47,497 21,659 45.60% 03:56:10 792

18 damage per match, run either in a pair on my K2 (lol) or four on my Spider.

I don't run Atlas' anyone care to share how much back armour they typically carry? Are you frequently 'devastated' by MG wielding Spiders?