69 replies to this topic

[Mothykins]

Alek Ituin, on 30 October 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

I'M LOOKING AT IT.

I for one, welcome our new Piranha overlords.

Piranha games should give us our Piranha.

[NovaFury]

As the owner of a Huginn, yes. Give us MGs that are not laughable, or energy hardpoints.

Flash Frame, on 30 October 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

You choose to run a light mech that cannot do the same damage ratio as larger mechs, you have made the choice to pilot that mech, knowing that speed is your life and that your weapons are more for harassment and less for straight out kills.

Yet other 35 ton mechs, such as the Jenner F or various Firestarters are allowed to carry six medium lasers, the same defensive brace that the Battlemaster 1G tends to use. Sure, MGs being anti-mech weapons is silly, but so is forcing them on people. Give us magshot gauss rifles if it's such a pain.

Edited by NovaFury, 30 October 2014 - 07:14 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Foxfire, on 30 October 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Funny thing is, even before the damage reduction, they barely scratched paint. It was when what the paint was on was removed that they became useful.

As is, unless you are face planting into the mech you are shooting at, MG's are back to being useless. It is honestly to the point in which I am seriously considering stripping the MG's out of my Huginn, upgrading the SRM's to A-SRM 6's with more ammo, and upping the engine size. MG's have gone back to feeling like you are smacking someone around with a wet noodle.

At the end of the day, any weapons in which a mech is dependent upon is required to be useful. It doesn't matter if you think it is only an anit-infantry weapon(which it wasn't in the TT).. without any infantry in this game to be useful against, then you might as well remove the MG's completely and give light mechs with a lot of ballistic slots energy slots instead.

Really? because I still FEAR light mechs with massed MG's and a couple of lasers.

They run up, run circles around larger mechs, tear open back armor, and shread internals.

Maybe you just need to rethink what you're doing in that light mech?

[Y E O N N E]

I don't feel like MGs need a damage buff of any sort. Range and a tighter cone, sure, but damage? That would be disgusting.

[Foxfire]

Flash Frame, on 30 October 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Really? because I still FEAR light mechs with massed MG's and a couple of lasers.

They run up, run circles around larger mechs, tear open back armor, and shread internals.

Maybe you just need to rethink what you're doing in that light mech?

Again, for any form of effectiveness with MG's, you have to practically faceplant into your target. How often is that a practical method of combat?

Yeonne Greene, on 30 October 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

I don't feel like MGs need a damage buff of any sort. Range and a tighter cone, sure, but damage? That would be disgusting.

While I could agree with a tighter COF(as an alternative to damage increase)... I don't really see how it would be disgusting for them to have higher damage when they weren't broken when they did 1 DPS before(aka .1 damage per shot).

Edited by Foxfire, 30 October 2014 - 07:45 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I faceroll all. the. time. with MG-focused 'Mechs like the Arrow. I'm not saying that to beat my chest, it's just a normal thing because that 'Mech is incredibly powerful within its optimum fighting range (which is really short). The Locust and Ember, too, are really easy to get more than 500 damage in a match with. 4000 rounds of MG ammo is 320 damage. 6000 rounds is 480. if you aren't hitting near that once you factor in your lasers, then you aren't spending that much time firing at targets.

I think any issue you might be having with MGs not doing enough damage is probably more closely related to hit-reg than the weapon. I'm spoiled with really low pings and extremely reliable hit-reg, so maybe that's coloring my impression. I didn't notice any change in performance with the Arrow before and after they "fixed" the MGs, so I really don't see where the need for more damage is coming from.

[Foxfire]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 October 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

I faceroll all. the. time. with MG-focused 'Mechs like the Arrow. I'm not saying that to beat my chest, it's just a normal thing because that 'Mech is incredibly powerful within its optimum fighting range (which is really short). The Locust and Ember, too, are really easy to get more than 500 damage in a match with. 4000 rounds of MG ammo is 320 damage. 6000 rounds is 480. if you aren't hitting near that once you factor in your lasers, then you aren't spending that much time firing at targets.

I think any issue you might be having with MGs not doing enough damage is probably more closely related to hit-reg than the weapon. I'm spoiled with really low pings and extremely reliable hit-reg, so maybe that's coloring my impression. I didn't notice any change in performance with the Arrow before and after they "fixed" the MGs, so I really don't see where the need for more damage is coming from.

Funny thing is, I did notice a significant reduction in MG effectiveness for the same playstyle both pre- and post-fix(A sentiment that I've seen from the majority of people who regularly use MG's that I've talked to and seen talk about MG's, not just me). Only two things changed in that patch. Hit registration supposedly was fixed so there weren't unregistered hits, and damage was reduced. I typically play in the ~50 ping range and I didn't change my playstyle on either side of the patch so there are only two explanations:

1) As you say, there could have been another hit registration issue introduced in the fix.
2) The damage reduction had a much more significant effect than simply countering the increased registration of hits, which was the proported reason for this introduction.

Theoretically, if the reduction in damage for MG's was to balance out the increase in registered hits, then the change shouldn't have been noticeable.

*edits to add*

Keep in mind that I fully acknowledge that MG's can still be effective if you get extremely close(aka faceplanting) your targets but that isn't practical most of the time, especially for most of the mechs that are reliant on MG's as part of their primary arsenal.

Edited by Foxfire, 30 October 2014 - 08:26 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

See, if you play an MG-focused 'Mech then you are automatically choosing to play a 'Mech that has to "faceplant" and should also recognize how to maximize its use.

I "faceplant" my MG focused 'Mechs, if you consider 120 meters to be "face-planting." It generally works very well, with pings typically falling lower than 40. The weakest in the bunch is the LCT-1V, but that 'Mech is also so small and so fast that it's not hard to sneak behind the enemy lines and start tearing up backsides. Alternatively, you just play the waiting game, standing with the team before getting into a brawl.

I don't generally have a problem "faceplanting" my Arrow, and I certainly have zero problems doing the same with the Locust or the Ember, because all of my Lights are equipped for short-range combat.

[Alek Ituin]

You know what, buff the MG's to 0.1 damage per shot and tighten the CoF a bit. It'll be more effective in general.

BUT, add in the Magshot Gauss Rifle as well like NovaFury suggested. Having another lightweight Ballistic option would be fantastic, especially if it lets you perform more efficient BnZ attacks... Running around with little Gauss Rifles would also be pretty cool. Stats could look like this:

Tons: 1
Slots: 2
Damage: 2
Heat: 1
Max Range: 300m
Optimal Range: 150m
CD: 4 seconds

So you basically get a super short range AC/2 with a much slower RoF, with 2x the weight of the MG. Can it be abused? Maybe, but so can Medium Lasers.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 30 October 2014 - 08:53 PM.

[Foxfire]

I consider faceplanting anything sub 50m and when you are playing a mech that has to keep moving to survive, that is a damn hard distance to maintain without slowing down to dangerously slow speeds. Anything in the 80m+ range, I've found the 'fixed' MG's to be ineffective as a weapon.

Edited by Foxfire, 30 October 2014 - 08:55 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Foxfire, on 30 October 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

I consider faceplanting anything sub 50m and when you are playing a mech that has to keep moving to survive, that is a damn hard distance to maintain without slowing down to dangerously slow speeds. Anything in the 80m+ range, I've found the 'fixed' MG's to be ineffective as a main weapon.

How is that a hard distance to maintain? I do it whenever I drive Locusts of any sort; it's necessary with the SRM2-centric LCT-3S because I need all of those missiles to hit a single location. It takes fancy footwork, but it's doable. Less doable is staying so close in something like the Arrow. which isn't that fast, but the Arrow is more of a bull-rusher than a Brawler. The Arrow should peak out and poke targets with its LPL/MPLs, and then rush the enemy when he's out of position or otherwise vulnerable. It can face-charge Timberwolves and Atlases, but that's a one-time-use type of tactic because it will leave your CT exposed by the end.

Alek Ituin, on 30 October 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

You know what, buff the MG's to 0.1 damage per shot and tighten the CoF a bit.

BUT, add in the Magshot Gauss Rifle as well. Having another lightweight Ballistic option would be fantastic, especially if it lets you perform more efficient BnZ attacks... Running around with little Gauss Rifles would also be pretty cool. Stats could look like this:

Tons: 1
Slots: 2
Damage: 2
Heat: 1
Max Range: 300m
Optimal Range: 150m
CD: 4 seconds

So you basically get a super short range AC/2 with a much slower RoF, with 2x the weight of the MG. Can it be abused? Maybe, but so can Medium Lasers.

Sounds like a terrible weapon, actually. You'd need 4 of them to get 8 damage, and that's only 2 DPS.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 30 October 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[aniviron]

CocoaJin, on 30 October 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

They may use MGs as primary weapons, but are they primary anti-mech weapons? The references I see regarding MGs routinely describes their primary tasking as anti-infantry and other soft targets. Their use as anti-mech weapons is as a secondary, improvised anti-mech weapon that comes out of necessity and/or desperation.

You see that from many poorly-informed people. Yes, MGs are great against infantry, but it's not their intended function. The first iteration of Battletech, which had no infantry, had MGs, which should make it pretty clear that they're intended as an anti-mech weapon. In Tabletop, a machinegun does the same damage per turn as an AC2.

Edited by aniviron, 30 October 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Foxfire]

You are taking a lot of risk for very little reward in that situation. Slowing your speed is more than just lowering the throttle. Spending a lot of time dancing around in the same area will have a similar effect for anyone worth their salt at shooting.

[Alek Ituin]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 October 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Sounds like a terrible weapon, actually. You'd need 4 of them to get 8 damage, and that's only 2 DPS.

Eh, I was shooting for "Not a 0.5 ton AC/2"... Could do a CD of 2, so double the RoF and get 4 DPS. Same as un-nerfed MG's but with less exposure and higher weight.

[Lord de Seis]

MG's are highly effective if used properly, I don't see how you can think otherwise.

[Y E O N N E]

Foxfire, on 30 October 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

You are taking a lot of risk for very little reward in that situation. Slowing your speed is more than just lowering the throttle. Spending a lot of time dancing around in the same area will have a similar effect for anyone worth their salt at shooting.

Which is why you have to take stock of the whole situation before engaging. I have had my fair share of deaths from failure to properly read the battlefield and its changes while engaging a target, and knowing that I have to make that extra effort with situational awareness is part of the deal with using Machine Guns.

You can't use MGs for slash-and-dash, which is what it sounds like you are trying to do. Sorry, but if you want to do that then you should go find yourself an SRM or laser boat. MGs are, by their nature, face-tanking weapons. The most reliable way to operate them is with your team holding the enemy's attention for you.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 30 October 2014 - 09:26 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

Lord de Seis, on 30 October 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

MG's are highly effective if used properly, I don't see how you can think otherwise.

A well trained marksman could use a rifled musket highly effectively. Doesn't mean a rifled musket would cut it on a battlefield.

MG's are inherently bad, but you can easily make them somewhat better.

[Carl Avery]

The Ember is the only light 'mech that's been used to win group tournament in the last few months. Why do you think that is? Why do the competitive players choose the Ember and not one of the other Firestarter variants?

I'll give you no hints; it's an easy answer, not a trick question.

[LORD TSARKON]

Spheroid, on 30 October 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

There are rumors of a macro exploit that boosts mg damage 200-300%. I won't go into specifics least my post is deleted.

Its not a rumor... its been proven(other websites and youtube) and will be supposedly fixed on the Nov Patch.... if you post how to do or about it PGI will delete the post immediately..

I knew something was up because I"ve seen way too many Machine Gun users lately tearing people up more than usual.

[Foxfire]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 October 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

Which is why you have to take stock of the whole situation before engaging. I have had my fair share of deaths from failure to properly read the battlefield and its changes while engaging a target, and knowing that I have to make that extra effort with situational awareness is part of the deal with using Machine Guns.

You can't use MGs for slash-and-dash, which is what it sounds like you are trying to do. Sorry, but if you want to do that then you should go find yourself an SRM or laser boat. MGs are, by their nature, face-tanking weapons. The most reliable way to operate them is with your team holding the enemy's attention for you.

As I said, MG's can still be effective. The issue is that the level of effectiveness for different play styles has diminished. Where MG's were once useful as part of the arsenal for a hit and run playstyle and quick backstabber in addition to it's effectiveness as a face to face weapon, it is now only effective as a face to face weapon.

As I stated multiple times before, I acknowledge that MG's are effective in that one role. It is the loss of effectiveness at the other role that is the issue I am talking about. The changes to MG's were supposed to be a net-sum-Zero change by design and yet they effectively neutered MG's for anything other than faceplanting your target.

This is the problem I am talking about. This is the reduction in effectiveness.

Edited by Foxfire, 30 October 2014 - 09:33 PM.