157 replies to this topic

[Selfish]

Noobzorz, on 07 March 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

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/

If you check it, however, you'll see MG's still have a crit far exceeding 100%. Look at the double crit rate to see more hilarity.

When they work as intended they'll be about 5 CDPS, which is still more than all other weapons in the game sans the average of every shot of the LB10 hitting a target component. They will still be crit-seekers even when they work properly.

[Heeden]

I think part of the problem is people expecting MGs to work as a primary damage source when really they come in as a form of utility. When you are looking at a couple of spare ballistic slots and tons to use up you don't compare the MGs to other ballistic weapons (they're too heavy) or laser / missile weapons (wrong slots) but instead you consider how they compare to heat-sinks, BAP or AMS.

Maybe they aren't too useful in matches where people only hit the CT and drill through from 0 armour to 0 internals in a couple of seconds but I frequently see mechs running around with armour stripped from components. I find the ability to destroy all the weapons in those areas much more useful for my Spider than AMS (I run away from missiles) or BAP (generally too much ECM about) or extra heat-sinks (running ERLLas or LPLas is fine with the 10 in-engine heat-sinks).

I know the counter-argument to that will probably be to not run Spiders, but it's a fun little mech and not everyone wants to run the current fotm to be "useful" to the team.

I think what people are really after is some combination of Heavy Machine Guns and the Machine Gun Array. I mentioned earlier that the damage-per-ton was in line with other ballistic weapons, the real problem is inability to get sufficient tons of MGs for people who want to use them as a primary weapon. Ammo weight is a problem, but if they remain at zero heat and constant damage the extra tonnage needed can count as a balance against weapons that need heat-sinks.

MustrumRidcully, on 07 March 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

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?

I'm sure the 20% was just a ball-park number, it could be 10% or 5% or whatever doesn't get you killed instantly whilst still making engine crits useful. Still 20% doesn't seem to bad a number as it is around what the perks award.

In fact I'd like to see it go further and have destroyed actuators in a component also reduce effectiveness in twisting/turning/moving etc. Something like each actuator destroyed removes (for example) half the value of the associated perks, and destroying the engine removes (for example) half the value of all perks. So destroying the actuators in an arm will reduce their movement speed by 7.5%, and destroying the engine will reduce it by another 7.5% as well as affecting other systems.

[Esplodin]

Heeden, on 08 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

I think part of the problem is people expecting MGs to work as a primary damage source when really they come in as a form of utility.

Tell that to the ballistic spider and cicada. Sorry, but ballistics are the primary weapons systems on those mechs. Having the only weapons you can meaningfully load only useful for extremely narrow set of circumstances is bad design. For the record I loaded one AC2 with two tons ammo on my 5K to level the chassis. That's all that frame can realistically load without sacrificing speed too much - aka survivability. All I want is for the small laser of ballistics. If you think that is OP, then the 9 small laser hunchie is the most broken mech EVER.

[General Taskeen]

Quote

Heeden, on 08 March 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:


I think what people are really after is some combination of Heavy Machine Guns and the Machine Gun Array. I mentioned earlier that the damage-per-ton was in line with other ballistic weapons, the real problem is inability to get sufficient tons of MGs for people who want to use them as a primary weapon. Ammo weight is a problem, but if they remain at zero heat and constant damage the extra tonnage needed can count as a balance against weapons that need heat-sinks.

Both of which, still do damage against Mechs.

Light Machine Gun - 1 Damage
Regular Machine Gun - 2 Damage
Heavy Machine Gun - 3 Damage

Machine Gun Array = 2 or 4 MG's (of any type) = Let's Break it Down

MGA LMG = 2 or 4 LMG = 2 to 4 Damage (Within the damage envelope of a Small Laser, similar to just 1 MG balanced by slightly increased short range, ammo)
MGA MG = 2 or 4 MG = 4 to 8 Damage (within Medium or Large laser damage, balanced by short range, ammo)
MGA HMG = 2 or 4 HMG = 6 to 12 Damage (within MPL or LPL damage, balanced by even shorter range 60M, ammo)

AC/2 - 2 Damage (long range -> heat, ammo)
Small Laser - 3 Damage (short range -> heat, no ammo)

They have the unfortunate name of "Machine Gun," so people simply equate them to an MG42. They still do damage to Mechs, its just how it was from the original game that had them balanced within their range envelope and ammunition. It was OK for them to do so and balanced due to the risk of getting in short range and low ammunition.

What happens if AP Gauss Rifles are ever added? Since it they are called "Anti-Personnel," they will be equated as being useful only for Infantry, even though they still do damage to a Mech at short range and do the same damage as a Small Laser.

The "problem" is that weapons added in MWO need an equal chance of damaging Mech Armor reliably with in certain constraints (92% of weapons can damage Mech Armor in MWO - Houston, we have a problem). An MG, in MW3, was balanced by short range, low ammo, a cool down, with fairly decent damage output.

If there was a 20 Ton Mech added that only boats energy weapons, it could reliably do so with Small Lasers (if speed/armor were a concern), since a Small Laser still has an equal chance of doing damage against armor even though it weighs half a ton. In some Record Sheet descriptions, a Small Laser is described as for "fending off infantry," so how about we make the Small Laser do 0.03 Damage, while ignoring that a Small Laser still can do 3 full damage to a Mech within its effective range. Sounds Legit.

Edited by General Taskeen, 09 March 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Heeden, on 08 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

I think what people are really after is some combination of Heavy Machine Guns and the Machine Gun Array.

Not really.

I would really like a clear explanation what they constitute in 1000 years as:

-Infantry [Including POWER ARMOR or full futuristic carapace armor]
-Vehicle Mounted Non-Portable Machine Guns that mechs have,
-Ammunition size/weight/caliber

What is battletech infantry?
-A 10 man squad of todays footsloggers with slightly better guns?
-A 10 man squad of tomorrows footsloggers with carapace armour and lasguns?
-Elementals and power armors (essentially vehicles)

What is a half tonne machine gun?
Today a 40mm grenade machinegun made by the us military weights between 40-50 kilograms.
If we double that weight to account for mounting brackets and ammo feed we get about 100 kilograms.

A ship mounted anti-air 20mm machinegun weights about 180kilograms fire shells more than TWICE the size of the .50 caliber infantry machinegun. We can mount two of those in half a tonne.

Personally I'd stop at 20mm anti-aircraft as a comparison as 40mm anti-aircraft cannons near the AC/2 line.

Ammunition Weight.
Each singular round in the MG's one tonne of ammunition weights 1,1lb or 0,5 kilograms.
The 40mm x 53 ABM HE Cartridge weights 0,340 kilograms just to put things into comparison.

So, with that in mind, how is making these weapons essnetially CRAP against anything with ANY kind of armor unless you mount about 8 or more of them to be ANYTHING less than pointless against another undamaged mech?

It simply doesnt make sense. These guns are not tiny, they DO have limited range and these weapons can actually become OVERPOWERED the way they are designed now since your firepower increased exponentially for each extra 0,5 tonne of MG you add.

80 X 12 = 960 damage over 16,6 seconds or 60DPS on a Piranha mech on one tonne of ammo - and at the same time they are almost POINTLESS on anything with 4 or less against anything armored because it takes too much time to deliver any damage as long as they have armor.

It kinda suck to be a lighter mech and have ballistics as primary guns - especially MG's like the spider.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 08 March 2013 - 09:02 AM.

[Heeden]

Esplodin, on 08 March 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Tell that to the ballistic spider and cicada. Sorry, but ballistics are the primary weapons systems on those mechs. Having the only weapons you can meaningfully load only useful for extremely narrow set of circumstances is bad design. For the record I loaded one AC2 with two tons ammo on my 5K to level the chassis. That's all that frame can realistically load without sacrificing speed too much - aka survivability. All I want is for the small laser of ballistics. If you think that is OP, then the 9 small laser hunchie is the most broken mech EVER.

Those chassis are for playing the little mech with a big gun. 5K definitely works best if you consider the chest-laser to be the primary weapon. ERLLas and LPLas work fine with the 10 in-engine (double) sinks, although taking the LPLas with a full compliment of MGs means you have to skimp on a bit of armour and/or jump-jets.

I haven't played the Cicada, but again it seems the energy slot is supposed to be the main source of damage (the hint was the PPC that came stock). Messing around on smurfy.net shows you can make a 133kph (300XL engine) variant with UAC-5 and 7 tons to split between the 1 energy, 3 ballistics and whatever ammo and utilities you want.

[Smk]

TexAss, on 07 March 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

When I read this up there ^^ I'm somehow glad since I clearly got an advantage now over him by only reading other peoples posts (like Gevurah's).

Oh please. There's no advantage to be had. These mechs that revolve around MGs are useless untill someone gets around to stipping the armor off. On a real mech you could have a weapon that is actually useful all the time instead of one you save just for when their armor is stripped. And hell, you could use that other weapon to just blow off the component anyways. No. MGs are in a really bad place right now.

[Tempered]

I tried a build after they buffed the mg crit to see if this was a sane way to kill mechs. I made a 3x erppc 3xmg Ilya. I thought that I would blast armor away with the ppcs and follow up with mg rain of crits. It ended up being the worst way possible to use that mech.

Using them on a scout mech to finish off wounded mechs is probably doable, but it leaves the scout vulnerable to every other scout in the game.

[Hawks]

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

The thing with MGs is that when you do get a kill with them it is immensely satisfying, and it is considered the height of good form to proudly announce 'MACHINE GUN KILL!" in chat

You need to be careful, though. In the process of typing 'MACHINE GUN KILL' in a match just now I almost ran OOB

[Sifright]

7c Nickel, on 07 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Engine crits do not kill mechs right now. If you had just ignored the machine guns there would be next to no difference.

I lol at the number of people that think this game works like table top and that crits are some how an important thing.

[Terror Teddy]

Sifright, on 09 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I lol at the number of people that think this game works like table top and that crits are some how an important thing.

Also even IF I get a crit with an MG the damage from 1 bullet of an MG getting a triple damage hit on internals is still only 0,04*3 so 0,12 damage to an internal with one bullet.

If I get a stream of bullets in one second then I get 10 chances for crits but that's still 0,4 TOTAL before crits and if 50% would get me criticals with X3 damage then I get a whopping 0,8 total damage...

...If I hit the same section during that second.

[Vahnn]

To have 1 MG and some ammo is 1.5 tons. I always have an extra Ballistic hardpoint on a couple of my mechs (CTF-3D, AS7-D,) and it's not difficult to find the tonnage. The only difference it makes in my gameplay is holding down a button while I'm doing my normal thing.

I'm actually quite surprised at how many times I'll be in a close-range fight to the death, knowing I need only one more hit to take out the other Atlas's AC/20, when my MG fire will pop it instead and my next Alpha can go somewhere else. It has literally saved me multiple times, or has at least allowed me to move on and start stripping down another section of armor.

I think the advantage that I personally gained in those handful of fights completely justifies the 1.5 tons that an MG and 1 ton of ammo gives.

If you have 4 MGs as your primary, or you're giving up an AC or UAC to have an MG in its place... You're doing it wrong.

[Sifright]

Terror Teddy, on 09 March 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

Also even IF I get a crit with an MG the damage from 1 bullet of an MG getting a triple damage hit on internals is still only 0,04*3 so 0,12 damage to an internal with one bullet.

If I get a stream of bullets in one second then I get 10 chances for crits but that's still 0,4 TOTAL before crits and if 50% would get me criticals with X3 damage then I get a whopping 0,8 total damage...

...If I hit the same section during that second.

nah they did up the damage of critical hits.

MGs get a 12.5X damage boost for the purposes of attacking equipment and only equipment.

Against armour and structure hp they are still 0.4 dps

[Terror Teddy]

Sifright, on 09 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

nah they did up the damage of critical hits.

MGs get a 12.5X damage boost for the purposes of attacking equipment and only equipment.

Against armour and structure hp they are still 0.4 dps

The sad thing is that it takes 2,3 minutes to emty 1 tonne of ammo to get 80 damage. No other singular weapon is that slow in emtying their ammunition and deliver the damage. The closest weapon is SRM2 or SSRM2 and those are all better weapons doing 1,43 DPS and take 175 seconds.

[Phoenix Gray]

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

Are you arguing that lights have a choice of being stupid easy to kill or just being ineffective in combat? Really?

Nope. I'm arguing that ALL lights that don't have the advantage of lag shields or wonky hit boxes are stupid easy to kill. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.

[General Taskeen]

Heeden, on 08 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Those chassis are for playing the little mech with a big gun. 5K definitely works best if you consider the chest-laser to be the primary weapon. ERLLas and LPLas work fine with the 10 in-engine (double) sinks, although taking the LPLas with a full compliment of MGs means you have to skimp on a bit of armour and/or jump-jets.

Um, what? No. Balance, first and foremost, should be focused at the stock level. Why? A 'stock' Mech has every chance to be featured as a Trial Mech, this being Free-To-Play after all. Most often the Devs rarely make one of the pointless MG laden, lighter Mechs a Trial, because they know they are utterly broken and would be an absolute terrible way to introduce a new player, being thrown out into the wilderness with wolves, if an MG can't output similar damage as a Small Laser.

A new player does not have the luxury of swapping out their 1 ton worth of MG's for something useful. They become target practice for all the big boys and girls who grind all day and know better not to use worthless, poorly balanced weapons relegated to the niche category.

A vast majority of people do not enjoy these 'niche' category weapons to be crit seekers. We want them to be relegated to their proper categories in-line with every weapon in the game that can do full damage vs. armor. Practically every weapon from 0.5 Ton Small Laser and up can dull full damage to armor and internals. An MG in 'TT' is far more balanced than the **** of a weapon we have in-game.

MWO;

0.5 Ton Small Laser - 3 Damage (front-loaded) in-game
0.5 Ton MG - 0.04 Damage in-game

TT;

0.5 Ton Small Laser - 3 Damage
0.25 Ton ER Micro Laser - 2 Damage
0.5 Ton IS MG - 2 Damage

^ It is most definitely possibly to achieve a close representation of an MG in a Mech Warrior game with proper balancing around better front-loaded damage, low ammunition, and a cool down.

Best example is MW3; .8 Damage, 0.625 Cool Down, 200 ammo (MWO could use .8, 0.5 Cool Down, 200 or 400 Ammo; Or .6, 0.4 Cool Down, 200 or 400 Ammo)

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 March 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Sifright]

Another mg thread that needs to be closed and it's post count and link added to the MG discussion balance thread

This is a post to assist the mods in understanding the breadth of the problem I will be copy pasting this into older machine gun threads that did not recieve mod or dev attention so the feed back can be linked from the new thread.

[Egomane]

Closed!

For MG discussion go here: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback/unread/