131 replies to this topic

[Bleary]

Giving weapons more specialized roles is a good idea. In fact, it's a necessary idea. I will be very disappointed if they scrap the crit angle and just make the MG into a ballistic slot small laser.

Given the the mad proliferation of weapons and chassis we're going to see, there need to be more weapon properties besides damage, cooldown, and range. Otherwise we are going to swiftly reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to new content. There are only so many different ways to juggle those stats and come up with weapons that are meaningfully different yet equally viable.

Making the machine gun and the LB-X into crit-seekers is a good idea. It fits with the general idea of these guns, it capitalizes on their strengths (high number of projectiles) and it's a perfect way of introducing a new sub-role for light 'Mechs with ballistic slots.

The problem is that it needs to do boosted damage to internals. Or engine crits need to be implemented. One or the other. It can't work if all it does is knock out weapons and heat sinks in a location that's a few solid hits from being destroyed anyway. It needs to be better at hurting damaged 'Mechs, ton for ton, than a medium laser. Otherwise it's useless.

And there's really no reason flamers should also occupy this niche. They already have theirs: debuffing your target by jacking up its heat. The numbers just need to be changed so that it actually makes sense to mount them and use them for that purpose.

Edited by Bleary, 27 February 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Kmieciu]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 February 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

There are many players that think there is something like "primary" weapons or "secondary" weapons or "support weapons". In general, such weapons do not exist. Weapons are either worth their weight, crit and hardpoint investment, or they are not. A weapon only becomes primary or secondary for an individual mech build - if you devote 15 tons to MGs and 3 tons on Medum Lasers, your MGs are probably your primary weapon, because that's what you spend most of your resources on.

Mustrum is right! There are no "secondary weapons". There are weapons that work, and those outclassed by them. For example SRM2 is outclassed by SRM4. If the SRM2 fired twice as fast as SRM4, then it would be a competitive weapon.

Two machineguns and 1 tonne of ammo should be more useful than 2 double heatsinks. It should be as useful as 2 tonnes of AC20 ammo. Only then competitive players would consider using machineguns.
Can you imagine a Hunchback HBK-4G. Swapping 2 tonnes of ammo for machineguns? Right now it`s foolish to say the least. I would like it to be a viable choice. Because choice is what makes a game great.

Edited by Kmieciu, 27 February 2013 - 11:28 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

Bleary, on 27 February 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Giving weapons more specialized roles is a good idea. In fact, it's a necessary idea. I will be very disappointed if they scrap the crit angle and just make the MG into a ballistic slot small laser.

Given the the mad proliferation of weapons and chassis we're going to see, there need to be more weapon properties besides damage, cooldown, and range. Otherwise we are going to swiftly reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to new content. There are only so many different ways to juggle those stats and come up with weapons that are meaningfully different yet equally viable.

Making the machine gun and the LB-X into crit-seekers is a good idea. It fits with the general idea of these guns, it capitalizes on their strengths (high number of projectiles) and it's a perfect way of introducing a new sub-role for light 'Mechs with ballistic slots.

The problem is that it needs to do boosted damage to internals. Or engine crits need to be implemented. One or the other. It can't work if all it does is knock out weapons and heat sinks in a location that's a few solid hits from being destroyed anyway. It needs to be better at hurting damaged 'Mechs, ton for ton, than a medium laser. Otherwise it's useless.

And there's really no reason flamers should also occupy this niche. They already have theirs: debuffing your target by jacking up its heat. The numbers just need to be changed so that it actually makes sense to mount them and use them for that purpose.

This would be a legit concern if there wasn't such a MASSIVE need for a low weight ballistic option.

Sure you can have your critical weapons as alternative's, but first we have to have ACTUAL weapons.

[Corbon Zackery]

You have to remember that MechWarrior simply opens the door on the world of battletech. In the real battletech universe there are infantry, tanks, v-tols, Hovercraft. So a 4mg flamer spider would be in a lace for infantry support. Thus it would be a viable build for attacks against soft targets. Your not going waste a AC 20 round on a platoon of infantry.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bleary, on 27 February 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Giving weapons more specialized roles is a good idea. In fact, it's a necessary idea. I will be very disappointed if they scrap the crit angle and just make the MG into a ballistic slot small laser.

Given the the mad proliferation of weapons and chassis we're going to see, there need to be more weapon properties besides damage, cooldown, and range. Otherwise we are going to swiftly reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to new content. There are only so many different ways to juggle those stats and come up with weapons that are meaningfully different yet equally viable.

Making the machine gun and the LB-X into crit-seekers is a good idea. It fits with the general idea of these guns, it capitalizes on their strengths (high number of projectiles) and it's a perfect way of introducing a new sub-role for light 'Mechs with ballistic slots.

The problem is that it needs to do boosted damage to internals. Or engine crits need to be implemented. One or the other. It can't work if all it does is knock out weapons and heat sinks in a location that's a few solid hits from being destroyed anyway. It needs to be better at hurting damaged 'Mechs, ton for ton, than a medium laser. Otherwise it's useless.

And there's really no reason flamers should also occupy this niche. They already have theirs: debuffing your target by jacking up its heat. The numbers just need to be changed so that it actually makes sense to mount them and use them for that purpose.

Having a special effect alone doesn't make a weapon worthy. The special effect needs to be relevant in the game. Being able to destroy internal components rapidly fast is meaningless if you need twice or even four times longer getting to the internals in the first place with that weapon.

A meaningful special effect could be something like dealing minor damage but also making the target a missile magnet. Or knocking a mech over. Or temporarily disabling his weapons. Or heating him up significantly (e.g not like Flamers). Or disabling sensors (including Low-Light and Thermal Vision, Zoom and whatever.)
But Battletech doesn't have such weapons in general. The only effect of this kind exists for Flamers and Plasma Rifles (the heating up effect). MGs certainly qualify for none of this.

And even then, just having the ability doesn't make it good. If it takes 3 tons to light up a mech for 10 seconds, you're team is probably better off if you invest that tonnage in a medium laser and 2 Double Heat Sinks.

[Sephlock]

Hopefully they'll get around to implementing engine crits sometime soon... Then there will be epic whining and they'll nerf mgs and flamers...

[Znail]

Corbon Zackery, on 27 February 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

You have to remember that MechWarrior simply opens the door on the world of battletech. In the real battletech universe there are infantry, tanks, v-tols, Hovercraft. So a 4mg flamer spider would be in a lace for infantry support. Thus it would be a viable build for attacks against soft targets. Your not going waste a AC 20 round on a platoon of infantry.

But you need to realise that Flamers and MGs were around from the start of Battletech, when there were only mechs and they were still usefull. It's actually not very difficult to buff MG's to a usefull level, it's just that PGI has decided not to do it.

[Bleary]

Carrioncrows, on 27 February 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

This would be a legit concern if there wasn't such a MASSIVE need for a low weight ballistic option.

Sure you can have your critical weapons as alternative's, but first we have to have ACTUAL weapons.

The "massive need" at the moment consists of Spider-K and Cicada-C pilots. The vast majority of 'Mech builds are not hurting for a .5 ton ballistic slot option.

And a crit weapon that is actually effective at destroying a location (either through internal damage or engine crits) is a real weapon. A Spider-K that can swoop down and snap off a fleeing Raven's damaged leg with strafing MGs or run behind and core out an Atlas that's had its rear torso armor stripped has a much more viable role than a Spider-K with 4 small lasers. A Spider-K with 4 small lasers is just a really bad Jenner-F. A Cicada-C with 4 small lasers is the Cicada-B's ***** cousin.

An MG that works like a small laser just makes ballistic slots on light 'mechs into inferior energy slots. And it offers basically nothing to larger 'Mechs with ballistic slots. A couple of specific medium and heavy builds will get to spend some tons for a marginal increase in DPS. Hooray.

Edited by Bleary, 28 February 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[Corbon Zackery]

Znail, on 27 February 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

But you need to realise that Flamers and MGs were around from the start of Battletech, when there were only mechs and they were still usefull. It's actually not very difficult to buff MG's to a usefull level, it's just that PGI has decided not to do it.

That's because shooting a mech with 50 cal MG is not going to do anything to a mech that has 5 tons of armor on it plus they gave us all double armor making the MG even less effective. AC 2 is more in the range of a 30mm cannon still worthless but with a longer range. Your still not fully grasping how effective MG are because there is no infantry running out of the wood with grapple guns and comp B demo packs making swarm attacks on your mechs legs. Only then that you think hmm I should have put an MG or Flamer on my mech. Firestarter is the perfect example of a mech for infantry combat.
The Firestarter was designed by [color="#ba0000"]Argile Technologies[/color] of Skye in 2550 to perform as an incendiary 'Mech. During the Succession Wars this 'Mech sold well and it is believed there were somewhere around 3000 of them produced. The Firestarter was traditionally assigned at the company level instead of the lance level. The reason for this would seem to be that the 'Mech has such a specialized role that it is useless to assign it to lances. This changed in the later Succession Wars as it was found that the Firestarter performed well in the scout role, as it could start fires to prevent an enemy from attempting to follow through the inferno it could leave in its wake, and it could also clear areas for the advancement of friendly forces.^[1][2]
[edit] Armament

The Firestarter carries four Purity L-series Flamers for incendiary work. The Flamers can set fire to anything that can burn very quickly. For additional anti-personnel work, the Firestarter has two Deprus RF Machine Guns which, combined with the Flamers, can make short work of infantry units. The Firestarter carries two Magna Mk II Medium Lasers for when it is forced to engage hard targets like vehicles and other BattleMechs

[Bleary]

The way 'Mechs are described in their TRO entries often have nothing to do with how they actually worked on the tabletop. And the way they worked on the tabletop often has nothing to do with how they work in MWO. So.

MGs and flamers are in the game. There is no rational argument for not making then into guns someone would want to use. Just like they did with the AC/2. As infantry doesn't exist in MWO, that means giving them a viable anti-Mech role.

Edited by Bleary, 28 February 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[mechymike]

what i want done with MGs.

• able to crit armor and engine
  
• able to destroy missiles
  
• everything else stays the same

i have no problem with the current stats of MGs so long as they could do the 2 things above. it adds a special twist to the weapon while increasing its utility. the critting on armor would increase its potential damage without over doing it, and as people have said, allowing it to crit structure/armor will make it much more useful for destroying an exposed section, but still be out damaged by other weapons due to the low base damage. (as it should)





this maintains the MGs reason for being so light and ammo effecient, while giving it a reasonable boost in power/utility and as well as giving it a specialized role

i for one, would have a blast in a light MG boat picking off LRMs that are raining down towards an ally before our main advance, and waiting for some weakened targets to shred them down with crits

i just don't see why an AMS can destroy LRMs, but my MGs can't. its the same exact tonnage and i assume a similar if not the same weapon just in a different slot being pointed toward the sky

Edited by mechymike, 28 February 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Znail]

Corbon Zackery, on 28 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

That's because shooting a mech with 50 cal MG is not going to do anything to a mech that has 5 tons of armor on it plus they gave us all double armor making the MG even less effective. AC 2 is more in the range of a 30mm cannon still worthless but with a longer range.

What does 50 cal machineguns have to do with MWO? We got 0.5 tons of machineguns here and that is not some 50 cal weapon, more like 30mm gatlings. And they work in the lore the game is based on, so why should MGs not work in MWO?

[Soger Hayha]

Er....my triple MGs disagree with you.

Strip side torso armour off, rain MG fire on it, watch it change from yellow to orange to red to boom, dead mech. All for 2 tons? What's wrong with that?

If you don't like them, don't use them. But please don't ruin them for other people

[Znail]

Soger Hayha, on 28 February 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Er....my triple MGs disagree with you.

Strip side torso armour off, rain MG fire on it, watch it change from yellow to orange to red to boom, dead mech. All for 2 tons? What's wrong with that?

If you don't like them, don't use them. But please don't ruin them for other people

Interesting post. Are you aware of that MGs have no advantage in doing that at all compared to any other weapon? So one has to assume that the placebo effect has gotten to you.

[Pihb]

Don't you think they have tested the mg and flamer doing more damage? There is a reason they don't do damage and it's probably a good one. Just what we need, 2 more skillless weapons for the toothless masses who cant aim.

[Asmosis]

when flamer scores a crit, it should raise heat level instead of damaging something.

Crits would be a lot more useful if engines could be destroyed by crit rather than just the torso section they are mounted in.

And also yes, machine gun bullets should be able to hit incoming missiles since AMS is basically an autofire machinegun.

Edited by Asmosis, 28 February 2013 - 02:26 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pihb, on 28 February 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

Don't you think they have tested the mg and flamer doing more damage? There is a reason they don't do damage and it's probably a good one. Just what we need, 2 more skillless weapons for the toothless masses who cant aim.

Skill-Less weapon? A weapon that requires you to keep firing at your enemy for a full second to deliver 4 damage to it?

A skill-less weapon might be instant-hit every second for 4 damage. (Or probably better - every 3 second for 12 damage, so you really have enough time to keep your mouse on the target.) Or do you mean it's skillless because you can't use your defensive skills to torso-twist between shots, because ther eis no "between shots"?

[Pihb]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 February 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Skill-Less weapon? A weapon that requires you to keep firing at your enemy for a full second to deliver 4 damage to it?

A skill-less weapon might be instant-hit every second for 4 damage. (Or probably better - every 3 second for 12 damage, so you really have enough time to keep your mouse on the target.) Or do you mean it's skillless because you can't use your defensive skills to torso-twist between shots, because ther eis no "between shots"?

I am not saying it's skilless right now. If you get a kill with either one of these weapons, my hats off to you. I killed a dragon with a mg last night and i couldn't believe it. All i am saying is PGI has probably already tested these weapons with more damage and for one reason or another thought better of it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pihb, on 28 February 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

I am not saying it's skilless right now. If you get a kill with either one of these weapons, my hats off to you. I killed a dragon with a mg last night and i couldn't believe it. All i am saying is PGI has probably already tested these weapons with more damage and for one reason or another thought better of it.

Don't trust PGI having done such work. There is no reason to believe they did. They have put out patches with very glaring issues before, like that famous ARTEMIS patch where missiles started dropping in 90° angles so cover was useless. They implemented ammo and gauss explosions, except it never worked until very recently. When they implemented Double Heat Sinks, they missed that engine sinks weren't acting like Double Heat Sinks. And when they patched that, they wrote that all DHS were working at 1.4 Cap / 0.14 dissipation, but omitted (or didn't know?) that the first 10 engine heat sinks were 2 Cap / 0.2 Dissipation.

It took them months to accept that PPCs and ER PPCs were too hot so people rarely used them.

Testing big balance topics like this will rarely, if ever, work in small teams. You need a a large group of min/maxers to figure out the really cheesy builds and broken items.

My impression is that they fell in love with this crit-seeking idea without understanding the real implications of their system. It appears they tested it enough to realize that if they didn't boost component damage for the MG by a factor of 12, it wouldn't make one bit of difference, but I don't have the impression they really understood why that was the case. If they did, their factor 12 boost seems more like the only way to avoid their fundamental flaw.

[Josef Koba]

FupDup, on 25 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

An M240 with ammo only weighs 12.5 KG at most...Also, the only specified BT MG size is 20MM Gatling (see BT wiki). The folks who invented BT just decided to call it a machine gun instead of auto cannon. Technically speaking, auto cannons are actually considered a sub-category of machine guns.


Something a lot of people miss out on is that adding infantry would not make MGs useful...at all. We have click-and-drag laser beams that can sweep over a large area with a single trigger pull and do more damage to everything hit in that arc than MG bullets ever could. Even with single-shot lasers, I would still rather just chain-fire a few ML's or SL's to eat infantry alive. Better yet, just stomp on the miserable gits (especially if you're a fast light mech). MGs need to be good against mechs to have any use in this game.

Good gouge. Given that autocannons (in this case we're using the real world definition rather than BT) fire explosive ammo, it would make sense that they would do some manner of damage to a mech. A 20 mm gatling gun is gonna hurt at some point. The MG as it stands doesn't do much of anything. I'm curious now what the estimate would be for the caliber of some other BT weapons such as the AC/20. This serves no other purpose than my curiosity.