Machine guns are completely useless.

13468933

Comments

  • FACECAR
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    Cam7I3 wrote: »
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    The name of the class is Support, not assault, your answer lies there.

    Idiots here will defend anything broken about this game, no matter how obvious. Even call of duty players are more mature than battlefield forum users.

    I would not call him an idiot. He simply misses the point. He thinks a support class is not supposed to do damage. Lol. If there is a machine gun in a game about WW1 and the machine gun i
    FACECAR wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    FACECAR wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    Also let's look at the statistics.

    Lewis Rifle:

    Damage: 24

    MP18:

    Damage 23

    Both weapons have almost the same damage falloff curve, only offset in the Lewis' favor by 10%. Which means The lewis will do 70% of that 24 damage on 50m. While the MP18 will do 60% of 23 damage on 50m.

    The lewis fires bullets with about 8x the kinetic energy than what the MP18 fires. Yet both weapons get the same damage output in the game, and the problem gets compounded by the Lewis getting overheat penalties for realism, whil the damage realism is thrown out of the window.

    The Lewis gun actually deals less damage than the mp18 (21 vs 23, source: symthic). In fact, the mp18 has damage superiority over the Lewis gun out to about 35 meters. Submachine guns stomp all over LMGs.

    Are you sure? The weapon comparison chart shows:

    0wGw6ja.jpg

    Yes. Those in-game graphics are from an earlier build of the game (beta). LMG damage was reduced for release.

    http://symthic.com/bf1-compare?MP_18_Experimental_vs_Lewis_Gun_Low_Weight

    Here are the charts for LMGs.

    http://symthic.com/bf1-weapon-charts?support=1&sort=Class&adsc=DESC

    Why would a 3rd party source have more accurate data than the BF1 site? Where does he source his data from? And how old is it?

    The stats from the game and battlelog are notorious for being inaccurate/outdated. Symthic is the most reliable source, yes. Data is mined from the game files and the community performs in-depth testing.
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »

    This entire well typed post with supporting evidence is entirely moot due to the fact the game isn't balanced around realism.

    That is not true. There is evidence that the developers are using somewhat relatively realistic balance for weapon damage. Rifles do 3-5x more damage than submachine guns. And that relative damage crudely resembles realism in terms of bullet energy. However they complete broke it by giving LMGs the same damage as SMGs. They wanted relative realism but failed because some lead designer messed up making a top level decision that was idiotic

    It was a good post. While realism should be and often is taken into account, balance ultimately trumps all because it's more important to have a fun and competitive game than a realistic game. It's fine if a 1911 does 40 damage but it shouldn't do that damage past about 5-10m. A submachine gun should only out damage other weapons under 20m.

    Part of the issue with LMGs is that, not only do they all deal pretty low damage at around 20 points per shot, they also have some of the worst damage drop off. Damage for an LMG hits the minimum at 20-35m, SMG at 40m, and semi auto rifle at 30-50m. Why do LMGs have the lowest damage AND the quickest damage drop off?
  • FACECAR
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    The name of the class is Support, not assault, your answer lies there.

    So the extent of support is laying down around 4 seconds of suppressive fire before being killed? How supportive!

    That definitely wasn't my experience in the game...I provided ammo, dropped mortars on dug in enemies, repaired friendly armor, and drew enemy fire like crazy. As a support should.

    The definition of support also includes providing superior firepower with a machine gun so your teammates can move on an objective. You can't really provide that firepower if you can't put down threats quickly.
  • frostcat44
    41 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2016
    FACECAR wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    Cam7I3 wrote: »
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    The name of the class is Support, not assault, your answer lies there.

    Idiots here will defend anything broken about this game, no matter how obvious. Even call of duty players are more mature than battlefield forum users.

    I would not call him an idiot. He simply misses the point. He thinks a support class is not supposed to do damage. Lol. If there is a machine gun in a game about WW1 and the machine gun i
    FACECAR wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    FACECAR wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    Also let's look at the statistics.

    Lewis Rifle:

    Damage: 24

    MP18:

    Damage 23

    Both weapons have almost the same damage falloff curve, only offset in the Lewis' favor by 10%. Which means The lewis will do 70% of that 24 damage on 50m. While the MP18 will do 60% of 23 damage on 50m.

    The lewis fires bullets with about 8x the kinetic energy than what the MP18 fires. Yet both weapons get the same damage output in the game, and the problem gets compounded by the Lewis getting overheat penalties for realism, whil the damage realism is thrown out of the window.

    The Lewis gun actually deals less damage than the mp18 (21 vs 23, source: symthic). In fact, the mp18 has damage superiority over the Lewis gun out to about 35 meters. Submachine guns stomp all over LMGs.

    Are you sure? The weapon comparison chart shows:

    0wGw6ja.jpg

    Yes. Those in-game graphics are from an earlier build of the game (beta). LMG damage was reduced for release.

    http://symthic.com/bf1-compare?MP_18_Experimental_vs_Lewis_Gun_Low_Weight

    Here are the charts for LMGs.

    http://symthic.com/bf1-weapon-charts?support=1&sort=Class&adsc=DESC

    Why would a 3rd party source have more accurate data than the BF1 site? Where does he source his data from? And how old is it?

    The stats from the game and battlelog are notorious for being inaccurate/outdated. Symthic is the most reliable source, yes. Data is mined from the game files and the community performs in-depth testing.
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »

    This entire well typed post with supporting evidence is entirely moot due to the fact the game isn't balanced around realism.

    That is not true. There is evidence that the developers are using somewhat relatively realistic balance for weapon damage. Rifles do 3-5x more damage than submachine guns. And that relative damage crudely resembles realism in terms of bullet energy. However they complete broke it by giving LMGs the same damage as SMGs. They wanted relative realism but failed because some lead designer messed up making a top level decision that was idiotic

    It was a good post. While realism should be and often is taken into account, balance ultimately trumps all because it's more important to have a fun and competitive game than a realistic game. It's fine if a 1911 does 40 damage but it shouldn't do that damage past about 5-10m. A submachine gun should only out damage other weapons under 20m.

    Part of the issue with LMGs is that, not only do they all deal pretty low damage at around 20 points per shot, they also have some of the worst damage drop off. Damage for an LMG hits the minimum at 20-35m, SMG at 40m, and semi auto rifle at 30-50m. Why do LMGs have the lowest damage AND the quickest damage drop off?

    Has to be because some lead designer (guys who do not do any real work except for sitting at a table having grand ideas, and no one is allowed to question them) had the idea of this epic full auto gun fight with bullets flying everywhere. However that person overlooked that bullets flying without doing damage won't make players duck. That is the only reasonable explanation, because in testing the quality assurance must have noticed that MGs are worthless. Also their animators and sound artists probably actually fired some of these guns, as advertised in developer videos. So they should have felt how destructive a weapon is that in real life could chew through a brick wall on a kilometer distance firing bullets at 3000-4000 Joule energy. And how accurate they are. But all of that must have been brushed away by some lead designer with a lot of authority and a severe lack of common sense.

    What I find even more frustrating than the crappy damage is the "keep shooting for accuracy" mechanic. It very precisely penalizes smart machine gun use. Which would be, to fire in small bursts only when a target presents itself, so one does not get noticed by everyone on the map. That tightening accuracy completely sabotages that and forces the player to keep constantly shooting, again because the lead designer thought real machine guns shoot all the time without pause. Which they dont, because portable machine guns can not carry that much ammo or spare barrels
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    FACECAR wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    The name of the class is Support, not assault, your answer lies there.

    So the extent of support is laying down around 4 seconds of suppressive fire before being killed? How supportive!

    That definitely wasn't my experience in the game...I provided ammo, dropped mortars on dug in enemies, repaired friendly armor, and drew enemy fire like crazy. As a support should.

    The definition of support also includes providing superior firepower with a machine gun so your teammates can move on an objective. You can't really provide that firepower if you can't put down threats quickly.

    I disagree. Laying down covering fire doesn't directly imply you're killing people fast. I find DRAWING enemy fire and advising your squad to flank the enemy while they're supressed or distracted is far superior to popping out, getting a kill and getting back into cover.

    It's tricky for the devs to balance. If LMG's kill fast and have high RoF and have large ammo reserves they will quickly become OP unless they make them ridiculously hard to handle.

    How they are now they take 5-7 direct hits to down someone, have strong RoF, and are pretty accurate at medium range (after initial burst).

    Again, i'm very happy with where they are for the moment and would like to see the game evolve a bit more from average soldier class level perspective to determine whether or not they need a buff.
  • frostcat44
    41 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    That would create new problems and i'm sure you realize that.
  • Madzai
    122 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    That would create new problems and i'm sure you realize that.

    Making them inaccurate and hard to control along with damage buff? Make shooting on foot almost impossible? I mean even LMG accuracy mechanic suggest it. Like you hear LMG starting to fire at you, maybe hitting once. You are like: "OMG, better to lay down and hide, or i'll be dead in next couple of seconds". It also allow allow Snipers, and Medic, to some extend, to counter LMG.
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Madzai wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    That would create new problems and i'm sure you realize that.

    Making them inaccurate and hard to control along with damage buff? Make shooting on foot almost impossible? I mean even LMG accuracy mechanic suggest it. Like you hear LMG starting to fire at you, maybe hitting once. You are like: "OMG, better to lay down and hide, or i'll be dead in next couple of seconds". It also allow allow Snipers, and Medic, to some extend, to counter LMG.

    That isn't what he said though. He said change only the damage model so 2-3 bullets fired drop a target.

    Also, currently my LMG suppresses enemies well. People don't sit there and do math while playing. Bullets are flying, screen is getting red, they take/find cover.

    This whole idea of theory-crafting with math is a bit silly imo. On paper fair arguments can be made, but in game LMGs are doing their job of not only drawing fire - but also suppressing enemies.

  • frostcat44
    41 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    Madzai wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    That would create new problems and i'm sure you realize that.

    Making them inaccurate and hard to control along with damage buff? Make shooting on foot almost impossible? I mean even LMG accuracy mechanic suggest it. Like you hear LMG starting to fire at you, maybe hitting once. You are like: "OMG, better to lay down and hide, or i'll be dead in next couple of seconds". It also allow allow Snipers, and Medic, to some extend, to counter LMG.

    That isn't what he said though. He said change only the damage model so 2-3 bullets fired drop a target.

    Also, currently my LMG suppresses enemies well. People don't sit there and do math while playing. Bullets are flying, screen is getting red, they take/find cover.

    This whole idea of theory-crafting with math is a bit silly imo. On paper fair arguments can be made, but in game LMGs are doing their job of not only drawing fire - but also suppressing enemies.

    Completely wrong.
    MGs need mroe damage, and no trade-offs. Here is what will happen if machine guns with laser accuracy can drop any player in 2-3 hits on large distances:

    It will work. Other games like Red Orchestra 2 have completely consistent damage for all weapons. (anything rifle sized hitting center of mass is certain death unless it is a grazing shot).

    It would not be OP. Players would simply adapt to MGs being dangerous and they would have to use cover instead of strafing left and right while that one Lewis guy is trying to land 6 shots between the inaccurate opening burst and the overheat one second later.

    Here is proof of how it is supposed to be:



    Note, the machine gunner is still dead instantly from any accurate return fire. But his ability to make anyone trying to cross cower in fear creates guess what, WORKING SUPPRESSION. And he is still exposed while reloading, or when his barrel overheats.
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    Madzai wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    That would create new problems and i'm sure you realize that.

    Making them inaccurate and hard to control along with damage buff? Make shooting on foot almost impossible? I mean even LMG accuracy mechanic suggest it. Like you hear LMG starting to fire at you, maybe hitting once. You are like: "OMG, better to lay down and hide, or i'll be dead in next couple of seconds". It also allow allow Snipers, and Medic, to some extend, to counter LMG.

    That isn't what he said though. He said change only the damage model so 2-3 bullets fired drop a target.

    Also, currently my LMG suppresses enemies well. People don't sit there and do math while playing. Bullets are flying, screen is getting red, they take/find cover.

    This whole idea of theory-crafting with math is a bit silly imo. On paper fair arguments can be made, but in game LMGs are doing their job of not only drawing fire - but also suppressing enemies.

    Completely wrong.
    MGs need mroe damage, and no trade-offs. Here is what will happen if machine guns with laser accuracy can drop any player in 2-3 hits on large distances:

    It will work. Other games like Red Orchestra 2 have completely consistent damage for all weapons. (anything rifle sized hitting center of mass is certain death unless it is a grazing shot).

    It would not be OP. Players would simply adapt to MGs being dangerous and they would have to use cover instead of strafing left and right while that one Lewis guy is trying to land 6 shots between the inaccurate opening burst and the overheat one second later.

    Here is proof of how it is supposed to be:



    Note, the machine gunner is still dead instantly from any accurate return fire. But his ability to make anyone trying to cross cower in fear creates guess what, WORKING SUPPRESSION. And he is still exposed while reloading, or when his barrel overheats.

    I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree.

  • Samyelson
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I disagree. The MG15 and Bar are amazing. I believe they just require a little getting use to.
    First time using MG15 Storm I went 25 and 4 on TDM.
    First time using a Bar I went 27 and 7.
    I feel these guns are doing fine, it is just a matter of positioning and learning control.
  • FACECAR
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2016
    munkt0r wrote: »
    FACECAR wrote: »
    munkt0r wrote: »
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    The name of the class is Support, not assault, your answer lies there.

    So the extent of support is laying down around 4 seconds of suppressive fire before being killed? How supportive!

    That definitely wasn't my experience in the game...I provided ammo, dropped mortars on dug in enemies, repaired friendly armor, and drew enemy fire like crazy. As a support should.

    The definition of support also includes providing superior firepower with a machine gun so your teammates can move on an objective. You can't really provide that firepower if you can't put down threats quickly.

    I disagree. Laying down covering fire doesn't directly imply you're killing people fast. I find DRAWING enemy fire and advising your squad to flank the enemy while they're supressed or distracted is far superior to popping out, getting a kill and getting back into cover.

    It's tricky for the devs to balance. If LMG's kill fast and have high RoF and have large ammo reserves they will quickly become OP unless they make them ridiculously hard to handle.

    How they are now they take 5-7 direct hits to down someone, have strong RoF, and are pretty accurate at medium range (after initial burst).

    Again, i'm very happy with where they are for the moment and would like to see the game evolve a bit more from average soldier class level perspective to determine whether or not they need a buff.

    The issue with suppressive fire is that there is little to none. The best tool we have for suppression at this point is actually dealing damage.

    LMG rate of fire is as follows: 450, 475, 480, 500, 540, and 600 RPM. At 21-23 damage before 20m and 15-19 damage after 35m, I would not use the word "strong" to describe any of these values.
    frostcat44 wrote: »
    No there is nothing tricky. just give it the same damage as rifles. So they drop a target in 2-3 shots no matter the range. Problem solved

    2-3 shots is too strong. LMGs are currently 5 point blank (max damage), 6-7 at range (min damage). Ideally they would be 4-5 max, 5-6 min.

    I propose that LMGs receive a 10% damage buff and have their dropoff (min damage) extended out from 25m-35m to 35m-45m to accentuate midrange capabilities. For reference SMGs currently sit at 40m and most semi auto rifles sit at 40-50m.
  • Squad_Cohesion
    910 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Its a real shame how DICE neglected or neutered suppression to almost CoD-values.
  • ThaRealOcho
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Dice needs to find this thread. The current state of machine guns is complete ****. Currently on big maps there are only 2 choices, sniper or medic. I hate that bf1 has tried to flatten the skill cap by making sniping easy and ruining any chance of playing aggressively with any kind of automatic rifle.
  • frostcat44
    41 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Dice needs to find this thread. The current state of machine guns is complete ****. Currently on big maps there are only 2 choices, sniper or medic. I hate that bf1 has tried to flatten the skill cap by making sniping easy and ruining any chance of playing aggressively with any kind of automatic rifle.
    We need to make noise on the forums so developers notice.
    Its a real shame how DICE neglected or neutered suppression to almost CoD-values.

    In CODs defense, machine guns in that game are deadly like any other weapon, so there suppression fire actually works.
  • bats0s
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    they are completely useless
  • Temp1st
    2493 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Dice needs to find this thread. The current state of machine guns is complete ****. Currently on big maps there are only 2 choices, sniper or medic. I hate that bf1 has tried to flatten the skill cap by making sniping easy and ruining any chance of playing aggressively with any kind of automatic rifle.

    Scout's are just amazing in BF1 and that's okay, And medics probably have the best weapon in the game that has extremely consistent damage at any range. Mondragon in particular is 3 shot at any range. This makes picking engagements very easy, As you exactly know how many shots it will always take.
  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Ransurias wrote: »
    Machine guns definitely need to be looked at. 4 shots to kill and less damage drop-off at range would make sense.

  • aseveredfoot
    2467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Temp1st wrote: »
    Dice needs to find this thread. The current state of machine guns is complete ****. Currently on big maps there are only 2 choices, sniper or medic. I hate that bf1 has tried to flatten the skill cap by making sniping easy and ruining any chance of playing aggressively with any kind of automatic rifle.

    Scout's are just amazing in BF1 and that's okay, And medics probably have the best weapon in the game that has extremely consistent damage at any range. Mondragon in particular is 3 shot at any range. This makes picking engagements very easy, As you exactly know how many shots it will always take.

    Agree on the medic comment. I love the rifles, only weapon I really feel confident going into the biggest range of situations. Been getting killed by the MP18 (oddly from long distances usually while trying to kill someone with a machine gun) a lot but don't really seem to have the knack with it myself yet.

    I agree with everyone with complaints about the LMGs. The idea that a properly sighted in weapon would be horribly inaccurate for even the first shot makes no sense; they honestly fire like guns with barrel damage or some actual problem, and that does break them in my opinion. I know the later ones are better, but I wish that support had a slightly more usable first weapon.
  • Foot_Elite_Guard
    313 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Dice needs to find this thread. The current state of machine guns is complete ****. Currently on big maps there are only 2 choices, sniper or medic. I hate that bf1 has tried to flatten the skill cap by making sniping easy and ruining any chance of playing aggressively with any kind of automatic rifle.

    I think that they purposely made the Support kind of Heavy assault class.
This discussion has been closed.