Well the problemw ith that is that you aren't comparing the utility of a Hatchet versus the utility of massed-MGs. You're comparing the utility of a mech with ONLY a hatchet versus a mech with ONLY MGs. It's an enormous difference. The MG mech will win nearly every time, as it can entirely dictate range. A hatchet, however, is almost never used purely on its own. It's a weapon designed to provide heat-free damage in the event the mech is able to close range. And if it's not? It has other weapons to deal damage at range.
In an actual match, there will almost always be lancemates, other weapons, terrain considerations,etc. All your experiment was able to prove is that in that very specific, very unlikely combat situation the Hatchet is a bad design choice. Saying that considerations such as other equipment, lancmates, etc muddy any discussion of which is the better design choice is the equivalent saying a mech with only a C3 master facing a mech with an equal tonnage of Medium lasers proves that the C3 Master is a waste of tonnage.
It seems you missed the part where I specifically said I dumped the ammo so that both would have nothing but physical attacks to rely upon. Yes early in the testing I didn't do that but I realized that contaminated the results and corrected it. I chose the Machine Guns specifically because they were only really useful at ranges where the Hatchet would have good odds of coming into play. I noticed the enormous difference in output of damage. I felt it was unfair even though it did pretty well prove the tonnage spent on a dedicated melee weapon often could be spent elsewhere for a much better gain.
Adding lance mates for the Hatchet wielding mech will actually say nothing about the value of the Hatchet and more about the value of having lance mates. Everything is better with lance mates. As such it is irrelevant and misleading to include lance mates when attempting to determine the value of a particular piece of equipment when comparing it to another that does the same function, in this case deal damage to an opponent at point blank range. When doing statistical analysis it is better to eliminate variables than to increase them.
Yes I could have done better by mounting seven medium lasers in one arm(or any other combo of 7 tons and 7 criticals of worthless gear) and just not use them so that there could be no question at all of critical hit absorption being in favor of the Machine Gun mech but since it never once came down to that in the testing I did it doesn't seem to have really mattered.
Also comparing C3 Master to 5 x Medium Lasers? So doesn't work because the jobs they are meant to do are not at all the same. Not even close to what I did.
Plus who says I used the Megamek bot? I never said one way or another. Though since it has come up I fought a person. One every bit as good as I am(past combats with this person have born this out). I even traded mechs with them every few fights so that there could be no question of favoritism in the testing. All maps were randomly determined. Even though the BV was technically not even the odds actually were.
Both mechs had the same armor, engine, gyro, and torso mounted cockpits.
I was very thorough in trying to determine the value of the Hatchet not the Hatchet and other equipment.
But since I seem to have such a poor methodology tell me how you would approach the matter. Remember my goal was to determine the value of the Hatchet not to prove the value of having lance mates or the value of any other piece of equipment.
