171 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 20 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I hate Jenners but I'd rather get taken down by a Jenner as opposed to a Spider. Hell, I'll throw a party if it's a Jenner. Just something wrong with getting eaten by a couple HSR/hit box exploiting terds literally "ping ping"ing you to death. Like a bunch of cartoon mexican jumping beans paper cutting you - annoying!

At least you freely admit that your opinion is based on irrational emotion, not fact. Most MG (and light 'mech) haters won't even recognize that.

Respect.

[Rippthrough]

Trauglodyte, on 20 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I hate Jenners but I'd rather get taken down by a Jenner as opposed to a Spider. Hell, I'll throw a party if it's a Jenner. Just something wrong with getting eaten by a couple HSR/hit box exploiting terds literally "ping ping"ing you to death. Like a bunch of cartoon mexican jumping beans paper cutting you - annoying!

Yep, that's why I play them, so much annoyance, it's great, you'll get 4 people chasing you just because they're fed up of hearing 'pingpingpingping'

Then they wonder why their team has all died 11 vs 8.
Then come on the forum to complain about MG's being OP.

's also the reason I have a Jenner with 6 Flamers.

Edited by Rippthrough, 20 August 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Trauglodyte, on 20 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I hate Jenners but I'd rather get taken down by a Jenner as opposed to a Spider. Hell, I'll throw a party if it's a Jenner. Just something wrong with getting eaten by a couple HSR/hit box exploiting terds literally "ping ping"ing you to death. Like a bunch of cartoon mexican jumping beans paper cutting you - annoying!

Love lights, play the heck out of them. I know my little group will kinda push the limit on mob style rushing builds but something deep down just will not let me play a spyder. We at least want it to be semi-tacticle, not exploiting flaws.

Funny,, our ESP must be kickin in.. Was already working on an LBX build, lets see how long till the post start flowing.

[Trauglodyte]

stjobe, on 20 August 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

At least you freely admit that your opinion is based on irrational emotion, not fact. Most MG (and light 'mech) haters won't even recognize that.

Respect.

On the contrary, I like MGs and thought that they were fine the way they were. I imagine that part of the reasoning behind the nerf was based on the upcoming "% of crit damage will be applied to the structure" concept. With the large pre-change chance to crit and the heavy multiplier, mulitiple MGs might (and I emphasize MIGHT) have been overboard. I can only guess that they tried it in their internal testing and saw that it was a bit too much.

Whenever I see a Spider, I always flash back to that seen from the Out Of Gas episode of Firefly where Jayne says, "Tell us where the stuff's at so I can shoot ya!" except I replace it with, "Stop moving so I can shot ya!"

Quote

's also the reason I have a Jenner with 6 Flamers.

NOOOOO!!! After watching Hammerborne (or is it reborn, I can't remember) and Soy terrify a PUG, once, in Tourmaline, I don't ever want to see it again. Hammer was in his 6 Flamer Jenner running around shutting people down while Soy mopped up in his Atlas. Comical and sad all at the same time.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 20 August 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Rippthrough]

If they've killed machine guns again because of all the whiners, I will be making it my mission in MWO this month to have a thread in here about how OP flamer Jenners are.

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 20 August 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

On the contrary, I like MGs and thought that they were fine the way they were. I imagine that part of the reasoning behind the nerf was based on the upcoming "% of crit damage will be applied to the structure" concept. With the large pre-change chance to crit and the heavy multiplier, mulitiple MGs might (and I emphasize MIGHT) have been overboard. I can only guess that they tried it in their internal testing and saw that it was a bit too much.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a MG and/or light hater.

Either way, the nerf isn't too bad; I managed to kill a breached Atlas on my first drop in my SDR-5K after the patch, using the MGs only. It took a bit longer than pre-patch; in fact, noticeably so.

[MaxStr]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 August 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

If you were losing to a mech that had to be within 250 meters of you AND hitting exposed internals to do ANYTHING, you need to go back to playing MechAssault, because they will never be able to nerf this game enough to make you a good player.

I don't think you understand how MGs work in MWO at all, or sarcasm for that matter. Here is some post-nerf math that will probably go way over your head.

The new machine gun changes:
Critical dmg per shot:
48% - 0 dmg
31% - 0.9 dmg
17% - 1.8 dmg
4% - 2.7 dmg
Weighted average - 0.693 crit dmg per shot.
Transferred to structure - 0.10395 dmg per shot
Crit DPS to structure - 1.0395 DPS
total DPS to structure with regular machine gun dmg -> 2.0395 DPS (down from 2.78125) per machine gun to an open component.

Edited by MaxKarnage, 20 August 2013 - 04:06 PM.

[TungstenWall]

Some what on subject:
I think the MG sound effect needs to be changed to something a little more... respectable? I would prefer what many refer to as a 'fart' sound.

[Nekki Basara]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate?

The funny thing is, machine guns tear reactive armour to pieces. You know why? Because it explodes on impact to redirect shaped charges away from the hull of the vehicle.

[Strum Wealh]

TungstenWall, on 20 August 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Some what on subject:
I think the MG sound effect needs to be changed to something a little more... respectable? I would prefer what many refer to as a 'fart' sound.

Indeed.

"Consisting of a radar-guided 20 mm (0.79 in) Gatling gun mounted on a swiveling base, the Phalanx is used by multiple Navies around the world, namely the Royal Navy and the United States Navy on every class of surface combat ship, by the United States Coast Guard aboard its Hamilton-class and Legend-class cutters and the navies of 16 allied nations."
"The basis of the system is the 20 mm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun autocannon, used since the 1960s by the United States military in nearly all fighter aircraft (and one land mounting, the M163 VADS), linked to a Ku-band radar system for acquiring and tracking targets."

[Tincan Nightmare]

Cycleboy, on 19 August 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yes, USAF wants to retire all their A-10s... which is why the Marines are taking them off their hands, and tell the USAF to "go F*&# themselves" for close air support. The straight wing, slow air speed, strafe that the A-10 can do is ideal for armor attacks. Plus, cluster bombs, plus suppressing other ground troops as that gun chews everything (cats, dogs, cars, brick buildings, bank safes, etc) it touches. Will one pass kill an Abrams? No. That's why the MG Spider doesn't get 10 kills per game. Will 4-5 passes do it? Yeah.

So now an A-10 is just cruising back and forth over a battlefield strafing the same tank over and over to kill it? This has become just bizarre. An A-10 can kill a tank on a first pass since its shooting downward at thin roof armor. As I posted earlier, the Gau-8 can pierce close to 40mm of armor at 1000 meters, which is probably more than most AFV's have on top. Of course it could just hit that tank with a Maverick missile from about 22km away. Yes the A-10 is a powerful close support craft that can loiter and carry one heck of a payload, but loitering slowly over a battlefield is only okay if the enemy doesn't have modern AA in any form. The F-35 incorporates stealth technology so it would be more survivable if you have to fight an enemy with a first rate air defense. Still trying to figure out how this relates to MG's in MWO, especially as I'm NOT in the camp that says MG's should not damage a mech.

[stjobe]

MaxKarnage, on 20 August 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

I don't think you understand how MGs work in MWO at all, or sarcasm for that matter. Here is some post-nerf math that will probably go way over your head.

The new machine gun changes:
Critical dmg per shot:
48% - 0 dmg
31% - 0.9 dmg
17% - 1.8 dmg
4% - 2.7 dmg
Weighted average - 0.693 crit dmg per shot.
Transferred to structure - 0.10395 dmg per shot
Crit DPS to structure - 1.0395 DPS 
total DPS to structure with regular machine gun dmg -> 2.0395 DPS (down from 2.78125) per machine gun to an open component.

Those total DPS values are slightly low - are you forgetting that the projectile does 0.1 - 0.3 damage to IS before adding the 15% crit damage?

I posted the correct numbers on the previous page:

stjobe, on 20 August 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

And here are the new post-patch values:

no crit: 48% chance, 0.1 damage to IS (0.48/s), 0 damage to IC
single crit: 31% chance, 0.235 damage to IS (0.7285/s), 0.9 damage to IC
double crit: 17% chance, 0.47 damage to IS (0.799/s), 1.8 damage to IC
triple crit: 4% chance, 0.705 damage to IS (0.282/s), 2.7 damage to IC

Summing up:
1 DPS vs armour
2.2898 DPS vs internal structure
6.93 DPS vs internal components