293 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

The way they've coded it seems to be that it's whenever you would roll a crit, not whenever you actually crit something.
Which is why MGs are actually really good at blowing the legs off of spiders, which have nothing crittable in them.

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 13 August 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

Hey I may be wrong. I may be wrong as hell.

I believe you are.

It does say "crit damage dealt" in the patch notes, but in practice it doesn't seem to need to apply to a (destroyable) component, i.e. if the game "rolls" a crit, that is the basis for the IS damage. Either that, or it calculates crits on internal components we cannot currently destroy (like e.g. actuators).

You can test this easily yourself in the Training Grounds; just find a 'mech that has a location without anything in it, remove the armour and then time how long it takes to destroy the location. It's quite obvious it's not doing 1 DPS, and in fact you will see it converge on the theoretical average of 2.76 DPS if you do enough tests.

I don't off the top of my head remember if there's a Training Ground 'mech with a Side Torso completely empty, but if there is, testing against that would conclusively show how the bonus IS damage system works.

[Carrioncrows]

stjobe, on 14 August 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

I believe you are.

It does say "crit damage dealt" in the patch notes, but in practice it doesn't seem to need to apply to a (destroyable) component, i.e. if the game "rolls" a crit, that is the basis for the IS damage. Either that, or it calculates crits on internal components we cannot currently destroy (like e.g. actuators).

You can test this easily yourself in the Training Grounds; just find a 'mech that has a location without anything in it, remove the armour and then time how long it takes to destroy the location. It's quite obvious it's not doing 1 DPS, and in fact you will see it converge on the theoretical average of 2.76 DPS if you do enough tests.

I don't off the top of my head remember if there's a Training Ground 'mech with a Side Torso completely empty, but if there is, testing against that would conclusively show how the bonus IS damage system works.

I like you jobe, we generally are pretty like minded people and mostly agree on a lot of the same stuff.

This is probably one of those area's where we just differ.

I would be happy to test things out in Training Grounds if it wasn't for the fact that training grounds at best is inconclusive data. It's no secret that Training Grounds is missing several massive mechanic's that limit it from being an accurate measuring stick.

When you can one shot a mech with twin LRM 15's you know there is an issue.

But at best we are both using words like "Seem" or "in my experience" I don't know because there is no definitive way for me to test this. At best we can only share our experiences and our perception on what things "seem" to be doing.

Obviously your experience is vastly different from mine in regards to this matter.

So lets cover my most basic problem with the machinegun.

Even if Machne guns instantly popped locations once armor was breached, that first magical bullet of a machine gun just instantly killed a location I would still strongly advocate the redesign and buff of the machine guns.

Nobody in the history of MWO has ever had a problem killing a location of a mech. The problem is always killing the armor to get to the juicy bits.

I would rather see a balanced weapon with higher damage but also lower ammo pool to balance it that works equally well on all fronts than a weapon that only works part time.

It is frankly in my opinion a bad weapon design because it's a situational weapon, one that is useless outside of those narrow parameters.

Sure you can make up for this by packing 6 of them onto a heavy mech, but what weapon doesn't get more devastating when wielded in large numbers?

If the machinegun can't stand alone in a singular nature and be effective 100% of the time it has no place "IMHO" in this game.

"Paper, rock scissor" weapons always end up effecting game play negatively. Look at this thread, it's divided almost evenly with 1/3rd saying it needs a nerf, 1/3rd saying it's fine and another 1/3rd asking for a buff. They have just exasperated the entire situation by being unwilling to simply buff the damage.

Balance is always best achieved with simplicity.

That is what I have always advocated.

I don't mind being wrong or even pleasantly surprised, but i honestly don't believe I am on this issue.

[MustrumRidcully]

Gallowglas, on 13 August 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Pray tell, which variant has 8 ballistic mounts?

He probably meant the 6 MG Spider.

Corwin Vickers, on 13 August 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

How in the living hell did you lose that fight??????????????

You deserved it

it could have been hit registration magic.

--

Regarding damage against mechs without internal components in a hit location:
1) I don't believe it really matters.
2) If it matters, the engine is actually a component, it has 15 hit points. Nothing happens when you deplete those points, but they are there. I don't know whether that means that you can actually deal an infinite amount of damage to it, or whether it stops being a viable crit target after its hit points are depleted.

I believe someone figured out that there is even more weirdness going on there, in that DHS installed in the engine can also be damaged or something like that. But I never went around to check any of that out. Maybe Selfish knows, he's our resident expert on the crit system.
(EDIT: He actually wrote something on this topic in response to questions: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2641944)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 August 2013 - 01:56 AM.

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 14 August 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

I like you jobe, we generally are pretty like minded people and mostly agree on a lot of the same stuff.

This is probably one of those area's where we just differ.

As long as we can have civil discourse, I don't mind differing opinions one bit - in fact, I like it. It keeps one on one's toes

Carrioncrows, on 14 August 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

But at best we are both using words like "Seem" or "in my experience" I don't know because there is no definitive way for me to test this. At best we can only share our experiences and our perception on what things "seem" to be doing.

Obviously your experience is vastly different from mine in regards to this matter.

Perhaps it's because I'm a light pilot by preference and that I've seen a dramatic increase in the killing power of my SDR-5K after the patch - and I've tested it on the live server using only MGs once armour is breached. MGs are currently very powerful against breached targets, I hope we can agree on that at least.

Carrioncrows, on 14 August 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

So lets cover my most basic problem with the machinegun.

Even if Machne guns instantly popped locations once armor was breached, that first magical bullet of a machine gun just instantly killed a location I would still strongly advocate the redesign and buff of the machine guns.

I wouldn't mind a redesign of it either, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen due to various reasons; the main one being that the lead dev wants them to be this "crit weapon" thing he came up with. It's his baby, and he won't throw it out.

Carrioncrows, on 14 August 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

I don't mind being wrong or even pleasantly surprised, but i honestly don't believe I am on this issue.

On the greater issue of how a MG should work, of course you're not. That's an opinion. But on the specific issue of when the crit bonus damage is applied to Internal Structure, I still believe you are (mainly due to my own experience and testing).

However, there's only one location (side torsos) that can be used to verify this, and they tend to be filled up with components, so even if you're right it makes little difference in how the MG works in practice.

In practice, MGs kills 'mechs after the patch. Prior to the patch they didn't. At this point of development, I'm happy that they've managed to make the MG a viable weapon for our ballistic lights and I don't expect MGs to change in any dramatic way - even though I agree it probably should.

Also, since I often cite numbers and theorycraft a lot, I'd like to share with you one of my favourite sayings: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is."

If it works, it works. And the MG currently works, finally.

[moneyBURNER]

Damage-racking beasts:

[Immitem]

The machine guns are fine! It is the bugged hitboxes on the spider that are the problem. Fix that and it evens out.

[starcaptain kerensky]

please, please fix the SPIDERS not the MG. MG's are currently OP ONLY when mounted in a spider.

When a light mech can run - untouched - through a full line of 6 enemy mechs, with out dying, it is broken.

[Budor]

Unleash the 12m dragon!

360xl,dhs,endo,ff,13sinks,max armor,2 ll,3 mg,srm6,ammo,fun.

[DeaconW]

[Kensaisama]

I find it amusing that for the longest time people complained that machine guns sucked and needed to be buffed, now that they have been buffed, people are now complaining that they are overpowered and need to be nerfed.

Machine guns are fine as is.

[Grandmaster Ramrod]

I know it's a bit late for the "mech MGs aren't .50cals, they're much bigger" but I saw this and... I want one

[Hotthedd]

Most of the weapons in MW:O are doing roughly 3 times the damage they did in TT, based on rate of fire.

MGs are now doing 5 times their damage vs. armor as per TT, and 12 times the damage vs. internals. On top of that, they got double the range as TT MGs, and an ammo buff.

ALL of this for 0.5 tons and zero heat.

[MustrumRidcully]

Grandmaster Ramrod, on 14 August 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

I know it's a bit late for the "mech MGs aren't .50cals, they're much bigger" but I saw this and... I want one

I believe even Mexico doesn't produce the VW Bug anymore, sorry.

[Kensaisama]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Most of the weapons in MW:O are doing roughly 3 times the damage they did in TT, based on rate of fire.

MGs are now doing 5 times their damage vs. armor as per TT, and 12 times the damage vs. internals. On top of that, they got double the range as TT MGs, and an ammo buff.

ALL of this for 0.5 tons and zero heat.

I guess you missed the memo where TT rules will not completely translate to an action FPS and that some deviation is necessary in order to facilitate some semblance of following the TT rules. (I know right!!).

[Hotthedd]

Kensaisama, on 14 August 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

I guess you missed the memo where TT rules will not completely translate to an action FPS and that some deviation is necessary in order to facilitate some semblance of following the TT rules. (I know right!!).

I guess you missed the fact that I was not calling for TT numbers, but was comparing the fact that every OTHER weapon is around 3X TT DPS value, but MGs are between 5X and 12X TT DPS value.

It is called a comparison.

[Kensaisama]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

I guess you missed the fact that I was not calling for TT numbers, but was comparing the fact that every OTHER weapon is around 3X TT DPS value, but MGs are between 5X and 12X TT DPS value.

It is called a comparison.

WOW, you completely missed the humor. You have my condolences.

[stjobe]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

the fact that every OTHER weapon is around 3X TT DPS value, but MGs are between 5X and 12X TT DPS value.

That really depends on what weapons you look at, and what weapons you choose to ignore.

Energy weapons are between 2.4-3.5x the TT DPS/10s:
Flamer: 3.5
SL: 3.3
ML: 2.4
LL: 2.6
PPC: 2.5

Missiles are in roughly the same range as energy weapons:
SRM-2: 2.75
SRM-6: 2.5
LRM-5: 3.4
LRM-20: 2.3

Ballistics, however, are all over the place, from the 2.5x of the AC/20 to the 20x of the AC/2:
AC/2: 20
MG(IS): 14
AC/5: 6.6
MG: 5
AC/10: 4
GR: 2.6
AC/20: 2.5

Please notice that generally the higher per-projectile or per-beam damage, the smaller the buff - with a few notable exceptions:

Both the AC/2 and AC/5 have gotten larger buffs vs armour than the MG (and before the MG got its vs-armour damage buffed, it was dead last among every single weapon in MWO at a measly 2x buff vs TT), and even if you look at just vs-IS damage, the AC/2 still beats the MG in buff size.

And as we all know, MGs have 100% time-on-target requirement to get its DPS, and it has spread that further reduces the effective DPS. Those two factors mean it can have a higher DPS than a direct-damage or beam weapon and still not be more powerful.

Edited by stjobe, 14 August 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[Hotthedd]

stjobe, on 14 August 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

That really depends on what weapons you look at, and what weapons you choose to ignore.

Energy weapons are between 2.4-3.5x the TT DPS/10s:
Flamer: 3.5
SL: 3.3
ML: 2.4
LL: 2.6
PPC: 2.5

Missiles are in roughly the same range as energy weapons:
SRM-2: 2.75
SRM-6: 2.5
LRM-5: 3.4
LRM-20: 2.3

Ballistics, however, are all over the place, from the 2.5x of the AC/20 to the 20x of the AC/2:
AC/2: 20
MG(IS): 14
AC/5: 6.6
MG: 5
AC/10: 4
GR: 2.6
AC/20: 2.5

Please notice that generally the higher per-projectile or per-beam damage, the smaller the buff - with a few notable exceptions:

Both the AC/2 and AC/5 have gotten larger buffs vs armour than the MG (and before the MG got its vs-armour damage buffed, it was dead last among every single weapon in MWO at a measly 2x buff vs TT), and even if you look at just vs-IS damage, the AC/2 still beats the MG in buff size.

And as we all know, MGs have 100% time-on-target requirement to get its DPS, and it has spread that further reduces the effective DPS. Those two factors mean it can have a higher DPS than a direct-damage or beam weapon and still not be more powerful.

Good points, but there are some other things to consider: heat, tonnage, and ROF.
Since AC/2s produce enough heat, they cannot maintain that DPS (not to mention the tonnage per DPS)
MGs can fire continuously with no heat, so they can effectively keep up that DPS as long as they have ammo. At 0.5 tons each, the only thing stopping the amount of MGs is the number of ballistic hard points. So, a single MG might not be massively OP, but 4 of them can spit out one continuous stream of 80 damage vs. armor in 10 seconds or 110 damage vs. I.S.!! Let's say only 50% of the shots hit. How many mechs can withstand 40 damage (spread across their torsos or legs) even if it ONLY hit armor? And that is in 10 seconds! Couple that with the spider, which (even if it had no hit registration issues) can maneuver well enough to put almost all of that on the rear of a mech, especially if it is engaged. Or couple that with a Jagermech that has 50% MORE MGs, and all of the armor of a 60 Ton mech. MGs got a range buff, but most importantly there is ZERO heat combined with continuous fire. THAT was the niche of the MG, and why it was balanced with relatively low damage.

[Shae Starfyre]

Most people don't see me on the battle field that post in these forums, because I bet my E.L.O. is really low; but, I do use LBX10 and MG a lot with very little cutting tools (maybe one ML on my Muuu).

Anyways, one thing I have noticed as I am constantly using tools to give me information on weak points as fast as possible and looking at that paper doll a lot, and what I see is the Armor outline still intact and internals getting destroyed. Not all of the time, but enough for me to think that there are some kind of pass-through with these crit seekers.

Also, on talk about this, to me, an imaginary cone of fire on the MG, is such that if I can do it, so can others, and that is that if you aim within the optimal range, that cone of fire is really not there.

Time and Time again, I can keep those babies on the target I want and cut through armor fairly quickly with concentrated fire to the location I want.

The cone is only really obvious when you are not aiming and you are not in optimal range, so I get a little quirk in my temple when I hear people use it as part of an argument.

On another note, MG have become so nice that I mount one whenever I get a chance and I put it on every firing group, as it only takes one burst, random maybe, to do a lot of damage that at times is just icing on the cake, to those internals.

It just seems to me that MG are in a good place because of this, as someone mentioned, why have it if it is not viable?

Also, I am surprised that some 12 vs 12 people are not getting together and comparing some real hard data together; you guys are the mainstream advocates, so get the data.