MG-105 vs. MG-94?

[Malidictus]

Disclaimer:
I was positive this question had been asked before, so I searched. The only thread I could find was from 2016, and I thought that necroing that thread would be churlish. I also wanted to see if I can inject some more factual information into the question, as well, and maybe get an updated opinion on the weapons after TWO YEARS :)

Question

Given their relative strengths and weaknesses, when and why am I expected to pick either weapon? For the sake of argument, let's assume that I was always going to pick a machinegun of some sort regardless of circumstances and not bring up what other weapons I could have picked instead. Consider it a thematic choice more so than a practical one. Having decided to pick a machinegun, which one should I pick and why?

Here's what I know

Based on first-hand experince, the on-game display and the Actual Weapon Power-Level Listing guide, I feel safe in assuming that both machineguns have if not the same then similar damage per shot.

As per the Wiki entries, the MG-105 has a maximum of 150 rounds in the magazine across 4 magazines default, 8 magazines max. That's an ammo capacity of 600/1200 rounds. The MG-94 has a maximum of 250 rounds in the magazine across 2 magazines default, 3 magazines max. That's an ammo capacity of 500/750 rounds max.

The MG-105 has a 3.5 second full reload, 3 second tactucal reload. The player can move during the reolad. The MG-94 has a 5-second full reload and no tactical reload. The player is rooted during the reload.

The MG-105 occupies the Primary Weapon slot and the Helldiver spawns with it both after death and at the start of a mission. Consequently, the opportunity cost of taking it on a mission is low - not taking a different weapon. The MG-94 occupies the Utility Weapon slot and is a Strategem with a single use. Consequently, the opportunity cost is fairly high - not taking a different Strategem and not being able to carry a different Suppor weapon, meaning no Anti-Tank option.

The game doesn't seem to have an accuracy or bullet spread metric displayed to the player anyway. The closest we have is Recoil which I don't know what that does exactly. The MG-105 has better Recoil than the MG-94 in the UI, but the MG-94 has significantly less initial bullet spread. Both weapons' bullet spread decreases rapidly over longer bursts down to what appears to be the same level, with the same speed. This gives the MG-94 better snapshot capability and makes it less dangerous for team-mates. I'd love to know more about the bullet spread mechanic, but that's the extent of what I do know.

Here's what I don't know

This started as a conversation between a friend of mine and myself, trying to explain and indeed understand why I REALLY don't like the MG-94. In our little group, I'm known as the machinegunner - it's a running joke. Yer in this game, I just don't use the biggest machinegun which would typically be my style. My reasoning, having evaluated the information available to me, is that it's just not a better gun. Hear me out.

If we compare the MG-94 against the Stalwart independent of their "opportunity" cost, then at best they're sidegrades of each other. The Stalwat has a smaller magazine but more total ammo and a faster reload. The MG-94 is generally more powerful, but also a lot more dangerous to use due to the slow rooting reload. If both weapons occupied the Primary Weapon slot, then that might be a meaningful choice. Do I want the "all-in" LMG that's more powerful but also harder to use, or would I rather have the "utility" LMG that's not as good but much less dangerous to me?

Trouble is, the MG-94 isn't a Primary Weapon, it's a Strategem. I forces me to choose between LMG OR Anti-Tank and takes up a Strategem Slot. With the Stalwart, I can have a similarly powerful LMG AND an Anti-Tank rifle AND an extra Strategem to bring into the game. At the best of time the MG-42 doesn't seem like the objectively better weapon. As a Strategem, though, I just fail to see what the selling point even is. Maybe that's the result of "power creep" DLC, since the Stalwart is a DLC weapon. I wasn't here two years ago so I genuinely don't know. The long and short of it, though, is I just don't see a point in ever using the MG-94.

That doesn't mean there ISN'T a point to picking it, not by a long shot. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I felt the same way about the commando a few days ago and you kind folks semt me straight about what I was doing wrong :) I sincerely hope there's something I'm missing here, is the whole point.

---

As a complete side point - does anybody know how bullet spread for rifles, LMGs and shotguns even works?

[Нагризолич]

Bigger MG is useless unless you're bored or want a challenge. Since it occupies heavy weapon slot, it's pretty much only useable against lurminaty. Smaller MG is a good all-around weapon, when in doubt - take it.
Bullet spread works pretty much like in any other game - each shot adds fraction of degree of spread that gradually decrease. Machineguns do that in reverse.

[tj11692]

I only use the larger MG when im using something like the rail gun in my primary slot for the stun effect. I dont find it to be particularly useful

[Malidictus]

So, I'm not really missing anything, then? Huh. Honestly, I keep thinking that if the MG-94 were a regular weapon with identical stats and upgrades to what it has now, it would be fairly well-balanced. There are a number of benefits to having it, but also a number of drawbacks. As a Strategemn, though, it just seems not nearly powerful enough to justify taking it. I'll stick with the Stalwart, if that's the case.

As to weapon spread - I don't think it's nearly that simple. There's no "spread" metric anywhere in the game, just Recoil. You could argue that Recoil just denotes spread by another name, but if that's the case then why does the Stalwart have a better Recoil stat than the MG-94 when the latter is demonstrably more accurate in practice? I am also interested in the game's under-the-hood spread mechanics, as well, but that's probably for a different topic.

[PsychoThruster]

Originally posted by Malidictus:

So, I'm not really missing anything, then? Huh. Honestly, I keep thinking that if the MG-94 were a regular weapon with identical stats and upgrades to what it has now, it would be fairly well-balanced. There are a number of benefits to having it, but also a number of drawbacks. As a Strategemn, though, it just seems not nearly powerful enough to justify taking it. I'll stick with the Stalwart, if that's the case.

As to weapon spread - I don't think it's nearly that simple. There's no "spread" metric anywhere in the game, just Recoil. You could argue that Recoil just denotes spread by another name, but if that's the case then why does the Stalwart have a better Recoil stat than the MG-94 when the latter is demonstrably more accurate in practice? I am also interested in the game's under-the-hood spread mechanics, as well, but that's probably for a different topic.

the mg 94 has a bit more power, but more imporantly pairs well with primary weapons that are situational like the rail gun or, double freedom, or even an smg. I take it fairly often and enjoy using it. Regardless of underlying mechanics and semantics, machineguns get more accurate the longer you fire them so the initial spread is high then it narrows.

[Нагризолич]

All those lines in stats are arbitrary at best, you have to test it to know for sure.

[CrazyGoblin]

On higher difficulties where more enemies have some degree of armor, both of the MGs are sadly quite lackluster. According to Darisnova's weapon testing (highly recommend checking it out, if you haven't already), the MG-94 does *marginally* more damage than the Stalwart, but this difference isn't really enough to warrant the difference of being a call-down. And while both can be used against the illuminate at high level, I feel that there are also 'better' options for both slot types when dealing with squids.

What I'd like to see is an AP-ammo upgrade for the MG-94. I feel that this would vastly improve its usage for later levels, while still providing an opportunity cost worth considering (since it would still occupy the slot of non-strat AT). Or, heck, maybe some ministun ammo like the Knight/Defender, to simulate a little "suppression" and move it into a utility role rather than straight DPS. The Stalwart would remain a useful tool, since it still has very high damage potential and ammo supply, but it would be relegated to more of a low/mid-tier niche due to fewer armored enemies, which I think is fine for a DLC weapon. And as we all know, you can still shoot heavy squids with it.

[Malidictus]

Honestly, I don't know that I agree with LMG usefulness in general. While mine is obviously anecdotal evidence, I eventually managed to get all three of the faction capes using the Stalwart LMG. It's not as immediately powerful as the MG-94, but it does get very powerful after a few shots. It just took me a while to figure out the weapon's handling - mostly how to maintain high accuracy without wasting ammo. It seems to me like the spread scales linerarly with time both while shooting and while not shooting. It means I can afford to stop shooting for brief moments to readjust my aim and still maintain most of the built-up accuracy. This helps me hit more accurately as well as avoid the aim slowdown while firing.

I probably mentioned this somewhere in the thread already, but I wasn't looking for the best possible weapon I could take. I was going to take an LMG one way or another - I knew this before even booting up the game. The question was which one, and my experience with the game since I made this thread is pretty clear - the Stalwart.

So far, I've only found use for the MG-94 when experimenting with questionable weapons. If I took a weapon other than the Stalwart and someone else already has anti-tank covered, I might take the MG-94 with me. You know, just in case my primary weapon sucks ass. You never know until you try it :) It's a decent backup weapon, in other words. Me personally, though - I genuinely feel that and a few other Heavy Weapons would be more competitive as actual Primary Weapons. That's a moot point either way, but at least I have an answer to my question :)

[Booby_Tuesdays]

IDK, the MG-105 Stalwart is crazy good when paired with the Gunslinger perk. YMMV.
MG-94 is the best crowd control weapon in the game imho.

Take the Stalwart when you just want to shoot things, take the MG-94 when you need the extra firepower. o7

[Cyber Von Cyberus]

I found it works best on illuminates, then again, the illuminates lack of armoured units makes a lot of antipersonnel weapons that are otherwise impractical into somewhat viable otipns

[Malidictus]

Yeah, the Illuminates do allow for more varied and entertaining loadouts, I do agree. Taking an MG-94 against them isn't a terrible idea as the extra anti-personnel capability is especially useful there. I remain unsure as to what it brings over the Stalwart, though, at least to the point of dedicating both a Strategem slot and my Heavy Weapon slot to it.

[Shendun]

its the same case with LAS-5 Scythe vs LAS-98 Laser Cannon.
scythe is your allround laser beam rifle vs las-98 which is a big heavy laser beam canon.

[Malidictus]

Originally posted by Foghidder:

its the same case with LAS-5 Scythe vs LAS-98 Laser Cannon.
scythe is your allround laser beam rifle vs las-98 which is a big heavy laser beam canon.

I did consider that, as well. I haven't actually tried the big Laser gun, but from seeing other people use it... It does seem objectively more powerful than all the little primary Laser weapons. It appears to kill faster, heat slower and reload just as quickly. With that one, I could conceivably justify dedicating the slots necessary. Maybe I'm just misreading the power gap, though.

[CrazyGoblin]

LAS-98 is in a different category from other laser weapons entirely. It's a siege beam, it'll melt through illuminates (particularly useful against the council members), it can kill warlords, and it'll even do a number on the bugs. Despite not being a dedicated AT weapon, it's located in the kind of gray zone where other high-powered weaponry lies, in that it can still deal (a relatively small amount of) damage to heavy armor if you get a good angle. It is, however, incredibly unwieldy, and you need to practice and get used to firing it as its own skill.

The Scythe doesn't even compare, as it struggles to kill even unarmored opponents. The Trident is used for clearing scout waves, and the Sickle is a great general purpose assault rifle. They're considerably more distant relatives than the MG94 and 105.

[SlavonBlue]

I think the gap in power bullet for bullet is bigger than you make it seem, especially on targets with a bit of armor. I think the MG-94 has significantly fewer shots to kill on many enemies. I'll have to see if I can test this out.

[Malidictus]

Originally posted by CrazyGoblin:

LAS-98 is in a different category from other laser weapons entirely. It's a siege beam, it'll melt through illuminates (particularly useful against the council members), it can kill warlords, and it'll even do a number on the bugs. Despite not being a dedicated AT weapon, it's located in the kind of gray zone where other high-powered weaponry lies, in that it can still deal (a relatively small amount of) damage to heavy armor if you get a good angle. It is, however, incredibly unwieldy, and you need to practice and get used to firing it as its own skill.

Raw high damage will typically defeat armour even if the weapon itself doesn't have the AP tag. From what I understand from the Wiki's section on enemy stats[helldivers.gamepedia.com], AP (and I presume Anti-Tank) effectively reduce the armour value that the weapon considers when calculating damage. AP itself reduces armour by as little as 15, which isn't actually a lot when most bullet weapons seem to deal 100 damage per shot. As such, a powerful weapon would be better at dealing with armoured opponents.

That's my interpretation of the stats, anyway.

Originally posted by CrazyGoblin:

The Scythe doesn't even compare, as it struggles to kill even unarmored opponents. The Trident is used for clearing scout waves, and the Sickle is a great general purpose assault rifle. They're considerably more distant relatives than the MG94 and 105.

That's what I was referring to, yes. The LAS-98 is considerably more powerful than the Scythe and other Primary Laser weapons, thus making it an airdropped item in the Heavy Weapon slot seems justified. The added power is a worthwhile tradeoff for the the added opportunity cost. I don't think the same applies to the MG-94, and it seems like you agree with me.

Originally posted by Blue101:

I think the gap in power bullet for bullet is bigger than you make it seem, especially on targets with a bit of armor. I think the MG-94 has significantly fewer shots to kill on many enemies. I'll have to see if I can test this out.

I've tested it myself, albeit not extensively. I'm also leaning on Weapon Power-Level guide. There, darisnova (the creator) estimated the MG-94 at 4 shots to kill a Hunter and the Stalwart at 5 shots. I've tested the same and my experience is consistent with those numbers. We know that an Illuminate Hunter had 400 health, constitution, no shield and no armour. That puts both weapons at or around 100 damage per shot. Considering how HIDEOUSLY inaccurate the Stalwart is for the first few shots, my suspicion is that their damage per shot is the same and its the weapon hitting glancing blows which causes the difference.

In either case, my experience with both weapons suggests that they have roughly the same damage output. The MG-94 simply gets there faster as it starts out with much less spread. That makes reactive shots more accurate and minimum burst size somewhat lower. The Stalwart, however, feels exactly as good at killing things once spread narrows, provided my aim doesn't suck. It feels like the MG-94 hits harder initially, but I've personally chalked that up to the randomness of accuracy, personally.

I could obviously be wrong and I do welcome info from what tests you're able to run, of course.