157 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Esplodin, on 07 March 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

1/2 ton weapon with the next Ballistic an increase of 12X the weigh - not a good comparison. Light mechs with ballistic slots need light weight ballistics to put there. The one that is light is only effective in a very narrow set of circumstances (no armor, within 150m, something left to crit) and mounting ANYTHING else is VASTLY superior. Heck, even a TAG is a better choice since you don't have ammo explosion concerns and you can be useful to the other mechs on your team.

I actually roll with 2 AC/2 on my Raven 4X. It's hilarious as all hell and it can even do a lot of damage (at least when I'm able to hit something, I suck eggs with ballistics). Of course, this comes at the downsides of a lackluster engine for a light mech and only one Medium Laser as backup (and only 2 tons of ammo). Dakkaraven is sad.

Spider 5K's, however, have no such ability. Trying to fill all 4 of their ballistic slots with AC/2's will take up 24 tons...on a 30 ton chassis. lolwut. The Cicada 3C can probably be configured to be a Dakkacada but won't have a whole lot of space left over for stuff like engine.


Those three mechs need some lovin' in terms of stuff to shove in those slots. I tried dual MGs on a 4X (with 2 MPL/ML and 1 SRM6) for a few matches and all that I managed to crit was an LBX-10 no matter how many boolets I hosed them down with on exposed areas. Maybe if MGs had a 100% crit rate and hitscan they might be slightly useful, but still not that great.

Edited by FupDup, 07 March 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[stjobe]

That's four matches in a 4xMG SDR-5K. 95 damage from 2,462 hits, or 0.036 damage per hit.

4,904 rounds fired, that's 1,226 per MG, or 122.6 seconds of firing - say two minutes.

So by firing four MGs for two minutes and admittedly only hitting with 50% of the shots, I do 95 damage.

To put 95 damage into perspective, the stock Atlas D-DC has 94 points of armour on its CT.

[Vassago Rain]

stjobe, on 07 March 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

That's four matches in a 4xMG SDR-5K. 95 damage from 2,462 hits, or 0.036 damage per hit.

4,904 rounds fired, that's 1,226 per MG, or 122.6 seconds of firing - say two minutes.

So by firing four MGs for two minutes and admittedly only hitting with 50% of the shots, I do 95 damage.

To put 95 damage into perspective, the stock Atlas D-DC has 94 points of armour on its CT.

Stock atlas also deals almost that much damage with a single press of the alpha key.

[Esplodin]

You know, just keep the crit mechanics, keep the damage lol low, keep the facehug range, and keep the insufficient 80 damage per ton of ammo. Give me engine crits (with 20hp engines, engine gone mech dies) and a 10% chance to crit through armor.

PGI saves face, ballistic light pilots rejoice, and big boy mechs rack up the kills on all the ballistic light pilots running up to inside 90m.

[Vassago Rain]

Esplodin, on 07 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

You know, just keep the crit mechanics, keep the damage lol low, keep the facehug range, and keep the insufficient 80 damage per ton of ammo. Give me engine crits (with 20hp engines, engine gone mech dies) and a 10% chance to crit through armor.

PGI saves face, ballistic light pilots rejoice, and big boy mechs rack up the kills on all the ballistic light pilots running up to inside 90m.

That's not a good solution, because a chunky, big gun would blow an engine apart much faster than a hosing from some puny machineguns,

Machineguns need to deal proper damage.

[Esplodin]

Vassago Rain, on 07 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Machineguns need to deal proper damage.

I agree completely, but I'm beginning to believe that is never going to happen. 7 pages and not one peep from PGI, not that I expected any. I have some small hope they have future grand plans for the current crit system that will be OMG fantastic they are keeping under wraps, but it is only a small hope - rapidly diminishing.

[stjobe]

Esplodin, on 07 March 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

I agree completely, but I'm beginning to believe that is never going to happen. 7 pages and not one peep from PGI, not that I expected any. I have some small hope they have future grand plans for the current crit system that will be OMG fantastic they are keeping under wraps, but it is only a small hope - rapidly diminishing.

As I said in an earlier post, with just a bit more paranoia I'd believe someone in PGI had a personal grudge against the MG.

They can't have looked at the numbers and said "oh, that's fine" - not when the MG so clearly under-performs and when it's so easy to see that it was nerfed already from the start, when it was converted from BattleTech to MWO and got a diametrically opposed treatment than all the other weapons.

I'd love to get a dev answer on that one - why on earth did the MG get the least DPS boost and an actual decrease in ammo per ton and damage per ton of ammo when every other weapon got an increase?

And this new implementation with the MG as a crit weapon does absolutely nothing for its viability for the ones that need it the most, the ballistic lights. I'm sure two MGs on a heavy or assault works fine as some sort of filler weapon, but for the SDR-5K it's the main weapon system and it needs to do about triple the damage it does right now.

[zverofaust]

I'm really glad PGI implemented testing mode if only so we can get videos like this showcasing serious balancing problems in consistent environments.

[Vassago Rain]

stjobe, on 07 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

As I said in an earlier post, with just a bit more paranoia I'd believe someone in PGI had a personal grudge against the MG.

They can't have looked at the numbers and said "oh, that's fine" - not when the MG so clearly under-performs and when it's so easy to see that it was nerfed already from the start, when it was converted from BattleTech to MWO and got a diametrically opposed treatment than all the other weapons.

I'd love to get a dev answer on that one - why on earth did the MG get the least DPS boost and an actual decrease in ammo per ton and damage per ton of ammo when every other weapon got an increase?

And this new implementation with the MG as a crit weapon does absolutely nothing for its viability for the ones that need it the most, the ballistic lights. I'm sure two MGs on a heavy or assault works fine as some sort of filler weapon, but for the SDR-5K it's the main weapon system and it needs to do about triple the damage it does right now.

More like even if they made machineguns really good, it wouldn't change the fact that the mechs that are intended to boat them are all terrible, and inferior to the competition, anyway. Ballistic ravens, machinegun spider, the ballistic cicada... They're all worthless, even with proper machineguns,

They'll need to overhaul all of them, and then they should do something about the almost completely useless gun.

[Terror Teddy]

Heeden, on 07 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Fun Fact:- Machine Guns have the best damage-per-second-per-ton of all ballistic weapons.

Unfortunately that is weak comfort when damage takes ages to apply.

hmm, funnily enough X8 mg capable mech would deala potential 640 damage in 25 seconds.

The piranha mech with 12 mgs would do 960 damage in 16,6 seconds with 1 tonne of ammo

Edited by Terror Teddy, 07 March 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[locilocisu]

I think we'll solve this problem once the developer put in the code where a damaged engine does something.

If we can crit Engines and say a broken engine makes a mech move and twist 20% slower, then there's tremendous value in critting. Currently the problem with critting is that a component that has weapons, are usually low HP anyways, so it's easier to simply destroy them.... arms and legs...even side torsos.

But Center Torsos have more health!, hence harder to destroy. I definitely see more mechs with no CT armor than undestroyed arms with no armor.

So engine damage! MG viable!

[Lykaon]

Sierra19, on 07 March 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

So what's the point of the video? MG's SHOULD NOT be primary weapons, they, like the LBX10 AC, are crit seeking weapons. They should be used on heavily damaged mechs, to crit internals. Sure, ANY weapon in game can take out a mech, but certain weapons are better than others for a given task, as your video shows.

The issue is why should I use machine guns if they have such a nitch function.I would rather use an SRM launcher that does stupid good damage for tonnage and has no difficulty hitting exposed internals because each and every missiles has a 3.5m splash effect for damage.
As long as there are options that can deal damage and also do critical damage I will call into question the design choice to even bother with enhancing MG crit seeking potential instead of just making the MG a viable backup weapon by improving the damage output.

As long as there are mechs that have multiple ballistic hardpoints that also lack the tonnage to make use of actual weapon systems I will question the viablity of both MGs and those chassis.

[Volume]

They really do a good job at critting internals. It's just hard to say if it's worth mounting. Using a ballistic slot plus like 2 tons (they're pretty useless unless you have at least 2 of them for a higher chance) to have a weapon that does effectively nothing except disable the weapons of an armor-stripped location on a 'mech if you can hold it on there long enough seems like I'd rather just have the 2 tons for something else, or use the ballistic hardpoint for something else. But there are situational uses for sure.

[stjobe]

locilocisu, on 07 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

So engine damage! MG viable!

As long as the MG cannot get through the armour that protects that engine on its own it'll never be a viable weapon.
Every other weapon in the game can do both, why on earth is the MG relegated to doing just one? Especially when it's the only light-weight ballistic weapon?

It makes so little sense it makes my head spin.

[Noobzorz]

Esplodin, on 07 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

There is no such thing as tiered weapons, and I have no clue why that is even an argument. If they are meant to be crit seekers only, are you going to step out of the way in your assault to let the MG spider strip the internals? No. You are going to finish them and get the kill, which makes having crit seeking weapons in game a total joke. I get the feeling that the resistance is really about making sure light pilots with ballistic hard points are gimped to ineffectiveness by denying them the ONLY ballistic weapon that will fit their weight. Terror indeed.

I should add:

They are not crit seekers. This was addressed in the patch (see the NGNG raw data check).

There was a typo for machine guns that gave them a 30% chance of 3 crits instead of a 3% chance. They suck at crit seeking again, now.

http://www.reddit.co...or_online_wiki/

Edited by Noobzorz, 07 March 2013 - 04:36 PM.

[Dreamslave]

Josef Nader, on 07 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Ah, but secondary weapons:

1) Tend to generate heat. This can be problematic for certain builds
2) Are -not- effective at knocking out components. More often than not, you have to destroy the entire section before you destroy the weapons. Remember, critical chance is rolled per shot. A small laser, the definition of a backup weapon, fires once every 2.25 seconds. The machine gun fires 10 times a second. That's 22.5 chances to score a critical hit and damage a component for every 1 chance the small laser has AND it has a significantly higher chance to actually strike a component and deal damage to it. Two machine guns get 45 chances per small laser shot to hit a component. Three? 67.5. Four? 90. 90 critical chances every 2.25 seconds. For three tons. That's respectable.The small laser is -far- more likely to just deal 3 damage to internals, rather than crit out equipment.
3) MGs have no cooldown, and there is no penalty -at all- for laying into your opponent constantly. No heat, ammunition is never a concern, and it is actually rather disorienting for your opponent (their paper doll never stops flashing, and they never stop getting a damage indicator, so it's hard to tell where the big hits are coming in).
4) Ballistics are extremely heavy, and it's often not worth trying to devote 7 tons to cramming an AC2 onto your build. MGs let you use up those slots without eating up tonnage, and they do enough to make it worth your time.

These things combine to give the MG a useful niche and a reason to exist, I think.

There is no useful niche. There is a reason not a single mech in serious 8 man play uses MG's (that myself or anyone I speak to has seen). Any pilot worth their salt will never touch a machine gun in there current form (except this one guy I know, but he uses them because they sound cool I think). They just are not viable. Not in the slightest. Over 1300 matches since reset and I have never once seen a machine gun in an 8 man, besides some sort of "troll" team who is easily defeated. The fact that there are players out there attempting to defend the validity of a machine gun is laughable and embarrassing at best.

Having said that, if you or anyone wants to use them, by all means, go for it. Nothings stopping you. Just know that you are a a liability to your team and are dragging them down for no other reason than your inability to accept that you are wrong.

Edited by Dreamslave, 07 March 2013 - 04:59 PM.

[aniviron]

Sierra19, on 07 March 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

So what's the point of the video? MG's SHOULD NOT be primary weapons, they, like the LBX10 AC, are crit seeking weapons. They should be used on heavily damaged mechs, to crit internals. Sure, ANY weapon in game can take out a mech, but certain weapons are better than others for a given task, as your video shows.

But every weapon in the game except the flamer, mg, and (this is arguable) small laser can be a primary weapon. Why should the machine gun be worse than every other weapon in the game? The whole "crit seeking" talk is silly. You know what else destroys crits quickly? PPCs, lasers, autocannons, and missiles. And the really neat thing is that they can do it from more than 90m away! Now, if MGs could crit like that against engines, it might be worth taking one in a rare specialist build now and then.

Gevurah, on 07 March 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

I'll put this into perspective:
I was running on alpine in my YLW, my usual mech. AC20, 6 tons of ammo, 2 ML's. Simple setup, effective.
I see a dragon with 3 machine guns running at me. I scoff. I shoot him, mess him up a bit and start brawling. I even go so far as to deliberately target the laser arms as they are the ones with the "real" weapons.

I fire and... nothing.

AC20 is gone.
Both Medium Lasers in the chest are gone - which is a virtual rarity.

At this point, I was neutered and at his mercy.

This is a true story; it's the only reason I ever even considered looking at MG's. Prior to that, I held your exact stance. I'm not saying there's not a better use of space in most cases. I prefer UAC5's, myself. But in reality if you are filling space for 1.5T and want something with some utility it IS an option, if used intelligently (as stated before).

But everything kills AC20. The moment your armor is gone, so is the gun. Pretty sure that my 4H hunch is steel stuffed with a paper autocannon- I can't think of a weapon that won't destroy it in one hit.

[Cest7]

I don't know why they decided for them to NOT crit engine

[Utilyan]

I believe. MGs/Flamers Got nerfed right under everyone's nose.

I used to get around 160 damage average/normally with MGs and flamer with my cicada 3c mech, this is my MAIN MECH. I have got experience with MGs and flamers. I would get kills, not often but i'd get kills.



On feb 19 when the BUFF for MGs and flamers came in.... know how every dog has his day? THAT WAS THE DAY OF THE DOG. I was getting around 250 DAMAGE per fight. I was killing 3 people a round with mgs here and there.....

It was going through CENTER TORSOs like a hot knife through butter. If you had armor missing.....YOU WERE DEAD.

THAT DAY.....the cicada got laid. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

IT was so EASY I QUIT.

I put away the cicada 3c........too easy.....I quit..... started playing around with the new trebuchets and started trying to make a urban mech out of the spiders.


Couple of days ago I took it out for a spin......cicada 3c 4mgs/flamer. first fight 11 pts damage.......ok bad piloting........8 damage....ok maybe im rusty.........14 damage... BS!....... I chased armless zombie cent with no armor for 5 minutes and on the same round found a AFK atlas and shot him......didn't kill 140 damage.

dude........THEY NERFED it. THEY NERFED IT WORST then it has EVER BEEN.

TO me who uses machineguns and flamers exclusively, its like night and day. 250, 260, 233 damage when the buff happened....................to now 11, 8, 14.....


Before the buff was doing around 160.......when the buff happenned 250.........couple days ago......11pts of damage. They ninja nerfed it.

Cause of this thread i'll prob try it again today........

[MustrumRidcully]

locilocisu, on 07 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I think we'll solve this problem once the developer put in the code where a damaged engine does something.

If we can crit Engines and say a broken engine makes a mech move and twist 20% slower, then there's tremendous value in critting. Currently the problem with critting is that a component that has weapons, are usually low HP anyways, so it's easier to simply destroy them.... arms and legs...even side torsos.

But Center Torsos have more health!, hence harder to destroy. I definitely see more mechs with no CT armor than undestroyed arms with no armor.

So engine damage! MG viable!

And what happens then - suddenly people complain about the MG being overpowered because no one can any more survive losing armour on his torso section? Can we please get less binary solutions to balance problems?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 March 2013 - 11:57 PM.