156 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Cavale, on 07 November 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

So a 1% chance to do "noticeably" more damage than a MG.

[Mcgral18]

Cavale, on 07 November 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

You are forgetting that ADDs onto the base crit chance of 1=-25%, 2=14% and 3=3%

You need to add those values to the above for the true crit chance. Please, try again.

[Scratx]

So, what I take from the OP is that the weapon with higher DPS ... outdamages the weapon with lower DPS. Whoopdedoo, I didn't need him to know that.

[Mothykins]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

So a 1% chance to do "noticeably" more damage than a MG.

Yes. 1 in 100 bullets in a perfect world. But I invite you to go and click a RNG on the Internet, with a range from 1-100, and record every click and count the number of 100s. You're not going to see 1 every 100.

That 1% is for every bullet. There's no "Keeping track" of how many crits or anything like that. Every bullet has a 1% chance. So your formula for crits is thus: 1 - ( ( 1 - x ) ^ y )

x= % chance, y is number of bullets.

This means that, for example, if you fire 100 Bullets, you still only have a 63% chance that you're going to get ONE of those crits. You begin approaching 95% at 400 bullets.

Mcgral18, on 07 November 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

You are forgetting that ADDs onto the base crit chance of 1=-25%, 2=14% and 3=3%

You need to add those values to the above for the true crit chance. Please, try again.

Ah, I see.

In this case, yes, you have a near 95% chance to max crit once for every 100 bullets.

Edited by Cavale, 07 November 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cavale, on 07 November 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Yes. 1 in 100 bullets in a perfect world. But I invite you to go and click a RNG on the Internet, with a range from 1-100, and record every click and count the number of 100s. You're not going to see 1 every 100.

That 1% is for every bullet. There's no "Keeping track" of how many crits or anything like that. Every bullet has a 1% chance. So your formula for crits is thus: 1 - ( ( 1 - x ) ^ y )

x= % chance, y is number of bullets.

This means that, for example, if you fire 100 Bullets, you still only have a 63% chance that you're going to get ONE of those crits. You begin approaching 95% at 400 bullets.


Ah, I see.

In this case, yes, you have a near 95% chance to max crit once for every 100 bullets.

Using Rick Raisley's Random Dice roller 20 rolls of a d100.
42,20,69,27,60,73,16,40,29,88,6,52,73,62,57,89,84,14,98,87

[Lord Perversor]

Felio, on 07 November 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

That's all theorycraft, though. Nebulous. That's why I threw it all out the window and performed a test unrealistically favorable to the MG.

Just try it again with 2x MG (1 ton ) vs 1x Med laser (1 ton ) so they are comparatively equal then proceed to perform it not only on legs but also ST of different mechs (Atlas as example with more components to check the differences)

And before you complain 1x Mg and half ton it's the same weight as 1x med laser but you are forgetting the 10x HS advantage the Laser comes with.

P.S: at the end of the day lasers are a bit more reliable and efficient for overall job but MG specially in higher numbers than just 1 , can wreak havoc in unarmored sections way faster than lasers.

Edited by Lord Perversor, 07 November 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[AssaultPig]

I'm amazed that this conclusion required a test to come to

[Big Tin Man]

Yes, MG's are crap, everyone should run heavy assaults with really big and slow weapons.

Please continue to ignore my ember, it is not deadly, 4 MG's is a noob build and I'm an awful pug for running it. Focus on a different mech. I'm no threat to your juicy sweet internal components.

Most fun I've had this week in my ember: standing toe to toe facing a 6 UAC5 DakkaWolf in the crater of Terra Therma. His entire front was critted. We were 50m apart staring each other in the face. He fired, I dodged, he fired some more and overheated. I took the left shoulder, then the right before he came back online, then when I went to jump on his head to mock him in his helpless state, but my team killed him

Most fun I've had this month in my ember: Ran around a corner in the first 2 minutes of a match on Tourmanline. Another mech was dualing with a Cat-K2, dual AC20. My teammate had just barely taken off the K2's leg armor on one leg, but the K2 was otherwise fresh. I pump 50 MG rounds into that leg as I run past him, the sparks start flying and four component destruction and a kill message flash on my screen and a refreshing message of "Target Destroyed" before I can even turn around and face him again. GG EZ LOL.

[Alek Ituin]

Mech MG's should be the equivalent of aircraft mounted 20mm cannons. We can also assume that their .5 (.25 for Clan) ton weight comes from the cooling system rather than the gun itself, because most aircraft cannons don't even break 100-150kg IRL. I use aircraft cannons as an example because they're stripped to the bone, no extraneous bits and bobs left on them so they save weight.

@ Jospeh Mallan -

5.56x45mm NATO delivers roughly 1.9kJ on impact, not accounting for velocity loss. A 20mm AP shell fired from an M39 delivers roughly 53.5kJ on impact and the entire cannon weighs only 80.9kg. Assuming we just use cyclic RoF, the M39 achieves 1500rpm, whereas the M16 achieves between 700-900rpm. I think Marine platoons are 39-ish soldiers (?) so they effectively fire 31200rpm combined (assuming an average of 800rpm)... A single M39 delivers roughly 80.25MJ over 1 minute, while a platoon worth of M16's delivers roughly 59.28MJ in the same time period. Oh, and 39 M16's weigh 156kg combined when loaded.

THE CANNON WINS! DING DING DING!

Anyway, pointless comparison aside, we can honestly assume Mech MG's are equivalent to 20mm cannons. So for all intents and purposes, they should be able to spall off an insane amount of armor and thus be useful against Mechs. I still support 1 DPS MG's, because even if they aren't spectacular, they're still something.

[Dragomir Zelenka]

Lord Perversor, on 07 November 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

P.S: at the end of the day lasers are a bit more reliable and efficient for overall job but MG specially in higher numbers than just 1 , can wreak havoc in unarmored sections why faster than lasers.

You know, people say that, but I never really see it in game. In game I see that I can eternally pound on exposed components with 4 mg and only see them erode away slowly. They don't seem a damn bit better than lasers at actually destroying components.

[Joseph Mallan]

I can ignore your ember for a short while depending on my armor's freshness. Ignoring a mosquito to often can be fatal though.

Alek Ituin, on 07 November 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Mech MG's should be the equivalent of aircraft mounted 20mm cannons. We can also assume that their .5 (.25 for Clan) ton weight comes from the cooling system rather than the gun itself, because most aircraft cannons don't even break 100-150kg IRL. I use aircraft cannons as an example because they're stripped to the bone, no extraneous bits and bobs left on them so they save weight.

@ Jospeh Mallan -

5.56x45mm NATO delivers roughly 1.9kJ on impact, not accounting for velocity loss. A 20mm AP shell fired from an M39 delivers roughly 53.5kJ on impact and the entire cannon weighs only 80.9kg. Assuming we just use cyclic RoF, the M39 achieves 1500rpm, whereas the M16 achieves between 700-900rpm. I think Marine platoons are 39-ish soldiers (?) so they effectively fire 31200rpm combined (assuming an average of 800rpm)... A single M39 delivers roughly 80.25MJ over 1 minute, while a platoon worth of M16's delivers roughly 59.28MJ in the same time period. Oh, and 39 M16's weigh 156kg combined when loaded.

THE CANNON WINS! DING DING DING!

Anyway, pointless comparison aside, we can honestly assume Mech MG's are equivalent to 20mm cannons. So for all intents and purposes, they should be able to spall off an insane amount of armor and thus be useful against Mechs. I still support 1 DPS MG's, because even if they aren't spectacular, they're still something.

Canon's are not Machine guns. Cannons fire Shells Machine guns fire Bullets. It is a distinction that holds up to any soldier.

[Alek Ituin]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I can ignore your ember for a short while depending on my armor's freshness. Ignoring a mosquito to often can be fatal though.

Mech-laria is a quite fatal disease so I hear...

[KraftySOT]

Not to turn this into a ballistics discussion, but a 20mm is worse than the Ma Deuce. If we were modeling the MGs after something, the .50 is the thing it best represents. Even APHEI 20mm is pretty bad at penetrating armor. APRC might get you through the armor of something like a locust, but really, these weapon systems are duds, and are supposed to be duds. Since an MGs main SOP is vehicles and infantry, simply for space and weight for effectiveness (MG vs an AC2, IE your 40mm Bofors) youre going to go with a .50, not a 20, 25, 30, or 37mm. Despite what the Russian will tell you, theyre not great air to air, air to surface, or surface to surface weapons. They shine as small ack ack or cover and concealment reducing support.

The 2 damage they do is over the course of hundreds of rounds fired in 10 seconds.

Its really pretty amazing they do any damage at all considering the physics of it.

But everyone likes MGs...and in the TT, they did alot of damage to infantry in the open, which was their real use, other than being a no heat way of dealing some damage.

Theyre there to just give you that extra .3 dps on your hot build. They arent really to be boated. Though theres the Piranha and Rattler who mount 12 mgs in the TT, but the Piranha is specifically designed to fight foot infantry and motorized infantry, and the Rattler is a joke mod of the Atlas, that gives it 12 mgs and a Hatchet (which is still one of the most deadly things on solaris)

[Lord Perversor]

Dragomir Zelenka, on 07 November 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

You know, people say that, but I never really see it in game. In game I see that I can eternally pound on exposed components with 4 mg and only see them erode away slowly. They don't seem a damn bit better than lasers at actually destroying components.

And in all fairness i can say it's true most of the times i see Mg somewhat slowly dealing dmg and don't seems so dangerous but sometimes i been able to witness MG dealing astounding ammounts of dmg (always to unarmored sections) trashing ST/legs or CT like Hot knife cutting tru butter...

Not sure if is something HSR relevant or not that's why i say that overall lasers will perform quite well but MG have the chance to perform not only similar but surpass them if the conditions are right.

pretty much like when the HSR goddess smile at you and allow your 3-4 med lasers to fully hit that light mech single section for full time and you see the light mech evaporate.

[Deathlike]

Oh... this thread.

It has been said a long while back about MGs, at how DPS was beyond awful.

Welcome back to the arguments that were made in 2013.

[Big Tin Man]

Alek Ituin, on 07 November 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Mech MG's should be the equivalent of aircraft mounted 20mm cannons. We can also assume that their .5 (.25 for Clan) ton weight comes from the cooling system rather than the gun itself, because most aircraft cannons don't even break 100-150kg IRL. I use aircraft cannons as an example because they're stripped to the bone, no extraneous bits and bobs left on them so they save weight. @ Jospeh Mallan - 5.56x45mm NATO delivers roughly 1.9kJ on impact, not accounting for velocity loss. A 20mm AP shell fired from an M39 delivers roughly 53.5kJ on impact and the entire cannon weighs only 80.9kg. Assuming we just use cyclic RoF, the M39 achieves 1500rpm, whereas the M16 achieves between 700-900rpm. I think Marine platoons are 39-ish soldiers (?) so they effectively fire 31200rpm combined (assuming an average of 800rpm)... A single M39 delivers roughly 80.25MJ over 1 minute, while a platoon worth of M16's delivers roughly 59.28MJ in the same time period. Oh, and 39 M16's weigh 156kg combined when loaded. THE CANNON WINS! DING DING DING! Anyway, pointless comparison aside, we can honestly assume Mech MG's are equivalent to 20mm cannons. So for all intents and purposes, they should be able to spall off an insane amount of armor and thus be useful against Mechs. I still support 1 DPS MG's, because even if they aren't spectacular, they're still something.

Based on the weights, the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger is probably a better comparison for both the weapon and the ammo weight in rounds per ton. And the GAU-8 is the weapon they built the A-10 Warthog around, specifically to kill tanks with thick armor plating.

GAU-8 = Lostech.

[FupDup]

B-b-b-b-but muh precious crit-seekers.

It's all because PGI is afraid of a 6 MG Spider having a devastating effect on the back of an Atlas. Even though we already have a 4 ML + 4 MG light that has a devastating effect on the front of an anything.

[Joseph Mallan]

gau-8= low caliber auto cannon.

[KraftySOT]

Theyre supposed to be awful. Its a machine gun.

[Brody319]

Alek Ituin, on 07 November 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Mech MG's should be the equivalent of aircraft mounted 20mm cannons. We can also assume that their .5 (.25 for Clan) ton weight comes from the cooling system rather than the gun itself, because most aircraft cannons don't even break 100-150kg IRL. I use aircraft cannons as an example because they're stripped to the bone, no extraneous bits and bobs left on them so they save weight.

They are miniguns so the rotation of the barrel keeps it cool thus why it generates no real heat