171 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

plus the occasional random chance for a single bullet to spike 3 damage on top of that...

Where do you get this from?

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

An MG does 1 damage in 1 second, which is 3 damage, in 3 seconds, followed by (when armor is gone) 2.65 damage per second, or 7.95 to Structure (internal health) per 3 seconds.

Your numbers are a bit off (perhaps from that mysterious "3 damage spike"?), it actually averages out to
1 DPS vs armour (same as the Small Laser).
2.76 DPS vs internal structure.
a bit over 11 DPS vs internal components.

[Koniving]

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Where do you get this from?


Your numbers are a bit off (perhaps from that mysterious "3 damage spike"?), it actually averages out to
1 DPS vs armour (same as the Small Laser).
2.76 DPS vs internal structure.
a bit over 11 DPS vs internal components.

Actually got the numbers from you. Remember the 2 (7?)% chance for a single bullet to do 3 damage to components? Welp, take that and 15% of it going to structure, and yep.

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Actually got the numbers from you. Remember the 2 (7?)% chance for a single bullet to do 3 damage to components? Welp, take that and 15% of it going to structure, and yep.

The triple crit of an MG does 0.6625 damage to internal structure, and the 5% chance of it is accounted for in the 2.76 DPS average.

If you're talking about the 3.75 damage a triple crit does to internal components, then that's just that; internal components. It has nothing to do with internal structure damage.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

MG's are a must in Mech Warrior. Where else us ballistic junkies are gonna get our "dakka dakka" fix? Also here's a robot chewing up soda cans just 'cause. : )

Edited by B3RZ3RK3R, 19 August 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[Koniving]

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

The triple crit of an MG does 0.6625 damage to internal structure, and the 5% chance of it is accounted for in the 2.76 DPS average.

If you're talking about the 3.75 damage a triple crit does to internal components, then that's just that; internal components. It has nothing to do with internal structure damage.

That's the one.

I know. But 15% of crits goes to internal structure components. Hence the 300 damage to components example if that chance was 100%, where 45 of it would be done to internals. Though with 3.75 it'd be 375 damage to components and 56.25 damage to the mech -- if it had a 100% chance instead.

[Hellcat420]

General Taskeen, on 17 August 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

Must we inform every person that doesn't know anything about Battle Tech?

MG's are not hand held guns on Mechs.  They do damage, actually, they do the same damage as AC/2 in Battle Tech, unreal right?

Please play MW3 or 4 before posting that an MG does not damage a Battle Mech.

thats funny because all of my battletech technical readouts describe machine guns on mechs as purely anti-infanry weapons.

Edited by Hellcat420, 19 August 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Hellcat420, on 19 August 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

thats funny because all of my battletech technical readouts describe machine guns on mechs as purely anti-infanry weapons.

Quote where it says "only infantry" and not "better vs infantry".

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

That's the one.

I must apologize; your numbers were indeed off, but so were mine. Here's what the numbers should be:

39% no-crit hits: 0.1 damage to IS per hit (0.39/s), 0 damage to IC/s
36% single crits: 0.2875 damage to IS per hit (1.035/s), 1.25 damage to IC per hit, (4.5/s)
20% double crits: 0.575 damage to IS per hit (1.15/s), 2.5 damage to IC per hit (5.0/s)
5% triple crits: 0.8625 damage to IS per hit (0.375/s), 3.75 damage to IC per hit (1.875/s)

Sum those up and we get
1 DPS vs armour
3.00625 DPS vs internal structure
11.375 DPS vs internal components

[Gremlich Johns]

Xanquil, on 17 August 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Having seen a T80 destroyed by a m19 fully automatic grenade launcher, and having holes punched into my APC by less than a .50cal, I can tell you for a fact that you are wrong. And a .50cal can indeed damage an Abrams it just takes it just takes a lot of amo or a lucky hit to take one out with one.

Bad examples.

the 40mm grenade from the m19 is HE, an MG round, unless DU, only chips paint.

Also, an APC is made out of aluminum. A 7.62mm AP round can take one out.

12-14mm rounds fired up the exhaust doors of an Abrams will disable it. as will 2xRPG-7s

[Joseph Mallan]

One Medic Army, on 19 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Quote where it says "only infantry" and not "better vs infantry".

The wording usually goes, "Machine Guns were added for anti Infantry fighting.

Vulcan Mech Armarments:

Quote

Armament

The primary weapon on the Vulcan is an Armstrong Autocannon/2. This weapon gives the Vulcan a long reach, but in an urban battlefield it can be a hindrance. The secondary weapon on the 'Mech is a Randell Medium Laser, which is useful in close combat against both hard and soft targets. For anti-infantry use, the Vulcan carries a Sperry Browning Machine Gun and a Firestorm Flamer.

This is the normal way Machine Guns an flames are described. Not that it is ONLY for, but were put on to combat specifically Infantry

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 August 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

@ Ripp. It's not the range people are trying to get. its a 0.5 ton weapon that does 20 damage in 10 seconds.

with no heat

[Koniving]

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

I must apologize; your numbers were indeed off, but so were mine. Here's what the numbers should be:

Sum those up and we get
1 DPS vs armour
3.00625 DPS vs internal structure
11.375 DPS vs internal components

Mine were generalizations from what I recalled of our last big discussion. And the new updated numbers are interesting.

One Medic Army, on 19 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Quote where it says "only infantry" and not "better vs infantry".

It doesn't. But it does say "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs."

Keep in mind "effective" doesn't mean churning out AC/20 rounds at rapid firing rates. It means spamming your machine gun for 10-ish seconds to do 2 damage. To compare Lore and TT's "effective" to MWO, it's the original MWO MG of 0.4 damage per second (0.04 damage per bullet) against a Hunchback (which currently has the armor of a lore-friendly Atlas special thanks to PGI's decision of alpha strike warrior).

Considering that a single MG are now doing virtually the same versus armor DPS as a small laser, and triple that dps against internal structure.. It's currently far beyond anything Battletech ever intended for it. So it does what it was supposed to and a lot more.

Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

It doesn't. But it does say "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs."

Considering that a single MG are now doing virtually the same versus armor DPS as a small laser, and triple that dps against internal structure.. It's currently far beyond anything Battletech ever intended for it. So it does what it was supposed to and a lot more.

To be fair, in TT they did 2d6 to infantry, whereas an AC/10 did 2 to infantry.
Of course they were good vs infantry, with stats like that they were arguably better vs infantry than an AC/20.

DPS is a terrible way to look at weapon vs weapon balance, as can be seen by how much the PPC outclasses the LPL.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 August 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

with no heat

For... 1 heat(?) An AC2 gets range, a depleted Uranium Armor Piercing driver and a smaller Explosion when Ammo is critted.

[Koniving]

One Medic Army, on 19 August 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

To be fair, in TT they did 2d6 to infantry, whereas an AC/10 did 2 to infantry.
Of course they were good vs infantry, with stats like that they were arguably better vs infantry than an AC/20.

DPS is a terrible way to look at weapon vs weapon balance, as can be seen by how much the PPC outclasses the LPL.

True. The problem there rests in 2 problems. One, range. Two, firing rate.

PPC should fire slower and be 10 heat -- it's a ballistic that uses heat as ammunition; not an energy weapon per-sé. LPL should fire faster, and the heat is okay.

In my personal opinion the lasers fire too slow. The beam time I'm fine with but when you combine the cooldown wait + the burn time you get the real recycle time. It's too long. Far too long compared to ammo based weapons. Large lasers for example are the one direct fire weapon that takes the longest to fire a second time. And why? It doesn't make any sense. But that's another debate altogether. For that, follow my 3 or so posts here for a comparison. Sooner or later I might sit down with Lordred or even StJobe here, and try to come up with more proper firing rates.

For another fun one

Spoiler

I got a simple solution for the PPC warrior, alpha warrior, and general AC spam warrior here.

All it does is change MWO's heat capacity system -- which isn't even much of a change other than values -- in favor of a MW3, TT-ish one that would turn alpha strikes into high risk maneuvers and make heat matter a lot more. Basically at the face value of 30 capacity and MWO's current medium lasers, 7 ML without a penalty would bring you to 28 out of 30 heat. Alpha striking isn't viable anymore!

4 ML brings you to 53.33% capacity, no matter how many heatsinks you have.

There's a dozen side effects from this.
Faster paced action yet slower paced combat (more big stompy robot feel, don't die nearly as fast, PGI might even half armor afterward), longer lasting brawls, time to do the torso twist to spread damage, having to wait to cool off more frequently (but it's faster, too!), trial mechs become seriously viable again, more time to coordinate with team mates, better survival rate from a 'mistake' that would have instantly killed you otherwise.

Best of all it'd take 10 to 30 seconds for PGI to make it happen, and require absolutely no code work.

Then, there's a slight modification further along called "Option 2." It's designed to help balance specific mechs to have some become more favorable for certain builds.

Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2013 - 05:45 PM.

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

And the new updated numbers are interesting.

They're not so much "new and updated" as "correct, finally". Even easy math is hard sometimes

[p4g3m4s7r]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 August 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Bad examples.

the 40mm grenade from the m19 is HE, an MG round, unless DU, only chips paint.

Also, an APC is made out of aluminum. A 7.62mm AP round can take one out.

12-14mm rounds fired up the exhaust doors of an Abrams will disable it. as will 2xRPG-7s

The M113 is the only aluminum armored APC currently in service, and it's been in the process of being phased out for a long time. It still generally has better protection than it's steel skinned predecessor.

Also, does the GAU-8 not count as a machine gun? Because it was designed with the intent of destroying tanks. Even if it's a technically a Gatling cannon, a machine-gun variant of it would still be more than able to pierce the hull of most heavily armored tanks.

Also, the M230 on the Apache is approximately a machine gun (it's technically an autocannon) and it can pierce a substantial amount of armor (not tanks, though).

Even then, none of the above really matters, because they might as well remove the machine gun from the game if they're going to make it the worst weapon in the game on purpose. There's really no reason to make a weapon useless. You simply reduce mech and variant diversity. The only reason anyone could want to do this is if they're just ashamed of being beaten by variants they think are bad.

[Hammerfinn]

"Can-opener" builds can actually be quite effective; have something with some punch to strip armor, then empty out the stripped section with MGs. A 6 MG Jag can take internals on an atlas from grey to gone in about 4 seconds; I'd call that situational, but certainly effective. Of course, this also has the side-effect of having all your teammates who are statwhores calling you a kill-stealer, but the way I see it, a dead enemy is still a dead enemy, and I just did it faster than you would have with your gauss and PPC.

[Vickinator]

Are you serious......this thread again. Just go to Sarna.net and look up why machine guns work.

[Airu]

Mgs are too good right now in some builds *cough* spider *cough*
Something needs to be done to stop this, its actually worse than raven 3L in its streak prime, it takes no skill to do the following (easy mode engaged):

Edited by Airu, 19 August 2013 - 10:13 PM.