64 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

No, it isn't. What's more, I know you are smart enough to know that. You are only "amazed" because you enjoy poking fun at folks on the forum, even if their point is well-reasoned and correct. Let's move on.


The MG is not on-par with the Small Laser.

• Small Laser does its damage in 0.75s and has 2.25s cool-down; during the cool-down you can torso-twist and otherwise maneuver to avoid damage
  
• Opponent's movements will force your MG damage to spread over multiple pieces; while an SL gives you the opportunity to aim at his CT, or whatever other part you are trying to destroy, when it is ready to be fired
  
• MG has a huge cone-of-fire, further spreading damage; try hitting a raven's leg with one
  
• MG requires ammunition that is finite, destructable for damage, and uses another ton and slot
  
• MG still does less than 0.8 DPS (remember, its fire rate is actually not 10/sec but more like 7/sec) while SL is 1.0

Saying the buffed MG will be similar to an SL in utility is stupid. It needs much more than a 100% buff. If an 0.8 DPS MG was going to be super-deadly then 6xSL Jenners would be the dominant mech in the game. Guess what? They aren't.





Please use your arithmetic skills, or actually play a mech with machine guns as its primary source of damage, before posting on this topic.

So model the MG after the Small laser. get it to have a cool down and equalize the damage with the small laser and SRM2 for DpS.

No 0.5 ton weapon should match a weapon like an AC20.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 May 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Howdy Doody]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 May 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

A benefit that is difficult still to express in simple statistics like this.

With the Machine Gun, you are on target 100 % of the time, or you don't deal damage.
The AC/20 - you need just one moment every 4 seconds where you're looking at the target. If you have only 0.5 seconds and then the target has run away, you still deliver 20 damage. If you got 20 seconds to fire at it, you can spend about 16 seconds twisting your torso so that the enemies damage doesn'T go to your CT or H all the time.

Modeling this is a bit harder. One approach I am leaning towards is looking at engagement times.

How much damage can you inflict in 6.25 seconds with an AC/20?
If your answer is "20", think again.

The real answer is: 40.
You shoot the moment our 6.25 seconds are clicking, at 0 seconds. 4 seconds later, you fire again. TOtal 40 damage.
The 4 Machine Guns starting to fire at 0 seconds will deal those 20 damage.

But even this is not enough to highlight the difference. The 4MGs weigh definitely less than half of the AC/20, so it still looks good. But there is still the issue of the, say 4.25 seconds the AC/20 user can torso twist. So even on this narrower time scale, we haven't fully shown the difference. But we get at least some closer.

I'm sorry I should have clarified more. I never meant to compare the MG to the AC/20. I was only surprised on how much damage the MG could optimally do. I realize the AC/20 fires again at the 4 sec part, but that AC/20 could also miss and then your not shooting again for 4 sec. I should never have compared apples to oranges.

All I wanted to illustrate was how the damage didn't seem to be as bad as I originally thought. The weapon is not a primary weapon. It's role is a secondary component stripper. For me that was never enough to bother using them. But with the buff I think there is a MUCH greater chance I will add them knowing that their damage to armor is not horrific anymore (it seems). So now I have a weapon that can do it's role AND also contribute to armor.

but Jeffsw6 brought up a couple points I forgot about. Mostly the fire cone MG have. I need to use them again and check this. I don't remember the cone being that big, but it's been a while since I have used them. Also the ROF. I assumed (assuming is ALWAYS bad) that it was 10 shots/sec. If that is not the case my entire post is out the window.

Thanks Mustrum & Archmace for pointing out my need to clarify.

Doody

Edited by Howdy Doody, 03 May 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 May 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

No 0.5 ton weapon should match a weapon like an AC20.

It doesn't. The MG remains significantly worse than the SL, and yet, you need 7 Small Lasers to do as much damage per shot as an AC/20. The SL has a 0.75 duration, so the damage might be spread to multiple components. Also most mechs can't mount 7 Small Lasers and none can mount that many on a single section. SL range is much less than AC/20 range. When you take an AC/20 hit, you have a huge cockpit-shake, which makes it a little more difficult to return fire. Again, not true of SL. There are only 3 mechs that can mount more than one AC/20 yet there are zero mechs that can mount 14 Small Lasers. The SLs generate more than twice as much heat/dmg as an AC/20. Finally, if you used up all the laser mount-points you have on SLs you wouldn't have any for primary energy-weapons like Medium or Large Lasers.

I can only assume that you must be either trolling, or mathematically-challenged. However, if you would like to post other really stupid comparisons of MGs or SLs to main-stream weapons that are actually effective, I will be happy to continue telling you why you are wrong.

TL;DR: Joseph Mallan is wrong on the Internet!!11111

Howdy Doody, on 03 May 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Also the ROF. I assumed (assuming is ALWAYS bad) that it was 10 shots/sec. If that is not the case my entire post is out the window.

It is supposed to be 10/sec, and that's how it is described in-game, but that's not what it really is. Check your MG stats, then drop into a test game and hold fire for 100 seconds, then quit the test game and re-check your stats. You won't have fired 10*seconds rounds.

Edited by jeffsw6, 03 May 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Roadbeer]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

I can only assume that you must be either trolling, or mathematically-challenged. However, if you would like to post other really stupid comparisons of MGs or SLs to main-stream weapons that are actually effective, I will be happy to continue telling you why you are wrong.

TL;DR: Joseph Mallan is wrong on the Internet!!11111

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is trolling, and I'm going to be angry, use inflammatory words and so many exclamation points that the internet runs out and i'm left posting the number 1 repeatedly.

Get used to a hard life son.

[jeffsw6]

Roadbeer, what are your thoughts on adding a fourth variant of the Spider as an alternative to ... making MGs remotely useful? The reason I care is that noobs end up buying the CDA-3C, which is completely worthless; and Spider pilots HAVE TO PLAY THE SDR-5K to get Elite in Spiders, which is ridiculous.

I think the MG should be useful, and its DPS figure needs to be at least equal to SL (keeping in mind that MG has no heat) because it has a big cone, is continuous-fire instead of burst-fire, and requires ammo that can be depleted or blown up.

I don't know why you can't agree with that, because it is clearly correct. However, do we both at least agree that something needs to be done for Spider pilots, and the CDA-3C should probably be modified or removed just so noobs won't end up investing a bunch of CB (or worse, MC) in a useless variant when there are several other CDAs that are viable?

[Joseph Mallan]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

It doesn't. The MG remains significantly worse than the SL, and yet, you need 7 Small Lasers to do as much damage per shot as an AC/20. The SL has a 0.75 duration, so the damage might be spread to multiple components. Also most mechs can't mount 7 Small Lasers and none can mount that many on a single section. SL range is much less than AC/20 range. When you take an AC/20 hit, you have a huge cockpit-shake, which makes it a little more difficult to return fire. Again, not true of SL. There are only 3 mechs that can mount more than one AC/20 yet there are zero mechs that can mount 14 Small Lasers. The SLs generate more than twice as much heat/dmg as an AC/20. Finally, if you used up all the laser mount-points you have on SLs you wouldn't have any for primary energy-weapons like Medium or Large Lasers.

I can only assume that you must be either trolling, or mathematically-challenged. However, if you would like to post other really stupid comparisons of MGs or SLs to main-stream weapons that are actually effective, I will be happy to continue telling you why you are wrong.

TL;DR: Joseph Mallan is wrong on the Internet!!11111

Did I say the MG DOES match and shouldn't or did I just say no 0.5 ton weapon should? Also You edited the more important part of the post which is to actually model the MG after the small laser for damage and "Beam/Burst" duration. As far as being wrong on the internet... I do not walk on water so I have no problem being wrong on occasions. Now Carry on sir.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 May 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[arghmace]

Oh, I didn't know that MG doesn't fire 10 shots per round. That changes things. But anyway most MG dissers completely forget the fact that it doesn't do heat. Let's say you have a mech with 3 large lasers with okayish heat management. Throw in 3 small lasers and you run hotter than hell. Throw in 3 MG's and your heat efficiency per damage just rises. Of course if you disregard heat, a small laser is better, but you cannot disregard it like that.

Edited by arghmace, 03 May 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

arghmace, on 03 May 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Oh, I didn't know that MG doesn't fire 10 shots per round. That changes things. But anyway most MG dissers completely forget the fact that it doesn't do heat. Let's say you have a mech with 3 large lasers with okayish heat management. Throw in 3 small lasers and you run hotter than hell. Throw in 3 MG's and your heat efficiency per damage just rises. Of course if you disregard heat, a small laser is better, but you cannot disregard it like that.

It is 10 rounds per second IIRC so the new MG would do 0.8 Damage per Second. Give it a 0.5 cooling cycle between 1.0 second bursts and you get a fair light ballistic weapon I would think.

[Trauglodyte]

Bunch of angry bads. The only two things that the newly buffed MG will have in common with the AC20 is that they're both ballistic weapons and that they they do close to 150 damage per ton of ammo. The new MG doesn't get 3x the range like other ballistics, it doesn't cause its damage in a one round strike, it doesn't benefit from Rapid Fire, doesn't actually have a firing delay due to projectile velocity, and it doesn't cause heat.

The MG now fills the role of a light weapon to be fit in ballistic slots by mechs that don't have the excess tonnage available for something heavier. That YOU, yes you, somehow still have an issue with combining 1-4 MGs with a Large Laser+ on your Spider or Cicada is not the fault of PGI or anyone else. The MG is NOT a mech coring weapon any more than the Flamer or Small Laser family. Get over yourself and stop wasting space on the internet with completely biased opinions.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 03 May 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[arghmace]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

play a mech with machine guns as its primary source of damage, before posting on this topic.

There's not a mech in this game, that could use MG's as primary source of damage. That doesn't mean they cannot be a valid side arm since their damage is free heat-wise. In your comparison between SL and MG you completely forget heat, which is just stupid.

[Howdy Doody]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

I can only assume that you must be either trolling, or mathematically-challenged. However, if you would like to post other really stupid comparisons of MGs or SLs to main-stream weapons that are actually effective, I will be happy to continue telling you why you are wrong.

TL;DR: Joseph Mallan is wrong on the Internet!!11111

Roadbeer, on 03 May 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is trolling, and I'm going to be angry, use inflammatory words and so many exclamation points that the internet runs out and i'm left posting the number 1 repeatedly.

Get used to a hard life son.

That was pretty damn funny! Thanks for the laugh gents! I needed it!

Edited by Howdy Doody, 03 May 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[BlackBeltJones]

90 meter, 120 meter who cares? Does anyone at PGI know the range of current machine guns?

[Joseph Mallan]

BlackBeltJones, on 03 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

90 meter, 120 meter who cares? Does anyone at PGI know the range of current machine guns?

Does anyone know how much velocity it takes to penetrate Imaginary Armor from a Futuristic game? MGs have much better range in this universe vs Soft targets.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 May 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

BlackBeltJones, on 03 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

90 meter, 120 meter who cares? Does anyone at PGI know the range of current machine guns?

Do you realize that we're playing a game (oh yes, a game) where we're running around in giant robots? Real life doesn't pertain.

[Ryokens leap]

Keifomofutu, on 03 May 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

But the crits man the criiiits!

Lb-10x.

[jeffsw6]

arghmace, on 03 May 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

There's not a mech in this game, that could use MG's as primary source of damage. That doesn't mean they cannot be a valid side arm since their damage is free heat-wise. In your comparison between SL and MG you completely forget heat, which is just stupid.

There are two mechs which are forced to use MGs as a primary source of damage, because they can't equip any viable armaments: SDR-5K, CDA-3C. They lack sufficient energy hard-points for multiple small or medium lasers and can't equip any missiles. Go ahead, pull them up in the mech lab. These mechs have 1 energy point and 4 ballistics. You can't get any TWO ballistics on these mechs, except MG, without having an engine so slow that the mech might as well be permanently-legged.

Change the weapon or change the mechs. If the weapon is changed so these mechs become viable, no other mechs will suddenly become over-powered. At most, they will get a little bit more DPS if they choose to carry an MG in a B slot they aren't using now, and a ton of ammo. Oh, and that DPS will only be useful at very short range, and will spray in a big cone around their opponent's various sections.

[BlackBeltJones]

Trauglodyte, on 03 May 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Do you realize that we're playing a game (oh yes, a game) where we're running around in giant robots? Real life doesn't pertain.

You expect lasers to function in accordance with your imagination, likely based on movies and such. You expect your fictional robot to move forward based on realistic motion and the jump jets to realistically propel you upward in accordance with your expectation of imaginary, fictional equipment. Why is is unreasonable to expect that machine guns in MWO function similarly to the current and real-life examples we have today? Why is my statement so inflammatory? Likely you would be questioning other items, even fictional items in a game, if they functioned in a way that seemed out of step with your expectations, especially if that item had a very similar currently used example to reference.

[arghmace]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

There are two mechs which are forced to use MGs as a primary source of damage, because they can't equip any viable armaments: SDR-5K, CDA-3C.

Yes, these variants are crappy. For now their primary source of damage is either LL or LPL in SDR-5K and ER PPC in CDA-3C. After this buff it's there and there if those energy weapons or the MG's are the primary source.

[jeffsw6]

Those energy weapons are a GIMP source of damage, because there are no other mechs that have such limited armament options. When 1 SDR and 1 CDA are by far the worst mechs in the game, feared by exactly no-one, and are only useful for scouting or capturing (which can also be done by the 6 other SDR and CDAs more effectively) and you are forced to play dozens of matches in that SDR if you want to Elite them, then either:

The mechs must be changed, or the weapons must be changed.

Edited by jeffsw6, 03 May 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

BlackBeltJones, on 03 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

You expect lasers to function in accordance with your imagination, likely based on movies and such. You expect your fictional robot to move forward based on realistic motion and the jump jets to realistically propel you upward in accordance with your expectation of imaginary, fictional equipment. Why is is unreasonable to expect that machine guns in MWO function similarly to the current and real-life examples we have today? Why is my statement so inflammatory? Likely you would be questioning other items, even fictional items in a game, if they functioned in a way that seemed out of step with your expectations, especially if that item had a very similar currently used example to reference.

I don't find your comments inflammatory. You weren't insulting. You were just being slightly unreasonable considering real life mechanics in a futuristic sci-fi game where nothing is balanced according to physics as we know it. This is just one of those things where you enjoy the game for what it is and avoid the brain cramp that is trying to rationalize it against current day reality.