340 replies to this topic

[coolnames]

Sifright, on 10 March 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

that has more to do with them realising they are out of position and drawing you into their own team mates so you get popped with the minimum of fuss.

I didn't say they were drawing me into their team, I said they would freak out.

[Buckminster]

Sifright, on 10 March 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

2 mgs 1 tonne of ammo 2 tonnes and 3 crit spaces either you could have fit a larger engine or you could stuck a heat sink in.

Unless I can split that DHS between my torso and leg, it's a no go. As it stands, I have a MG in each torso, and my ammo in a leg. I do not have three crit spaces available in any single location. If I did, it'd have a DHS.

And a larger engine? I'm running a 300XL. I max out at a 315. I'd rather have those MG's constantly firing and taking out weapons over the additional 1 kph.

[Sifright]

Buckminster, on 10 March 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Unless I can split that DHS between my torso and leg, it's a no go. As it stands, I have a MG in each torso, and my ammo in a leg. I do not have three crit spaces available in any single location. If I did, it'd have a DHS.

And a larger engine? I'm running a 300XL. I max out at a 315. I'd rather have those MG's constantly firing and taking out weapons over the additional 1 kph.

could you build it in smurfy? I'd like to play with the design see if I can't build you something you might like more.

[AC]

I hate the arguement from people that MG are not suppose to damage mech armor. They ARE, because that is how they were designed for Battletech. Download megamech and play any game and you will see that. In fact, MG were effective enough in tabletop that they made variants of them.

Regular MG
Light MG (more range)
Heavy MG (more damage)

Then they added MG arrays and the ability to rapid fire MG.

The purpose of MG is that they are a short range weapon that HAS NO HEAT. You swap heat for ammo dependance. 4MG should be about the same as 4ML, except you can fire them constantly without any heat issues.

Edited by AC, 10 March 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[Wintersdark]

coolnames, on 10 March 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

I do not agree. It is rational to understand they do no damage to armor, and ignore the MGs being shot at your mech. But, MGs pester just like a fly buzzing around your ear...Here is a good example from my experiences:

Every single LRM missileboat I find out on his own that is raining down missiles on my team will freak out when I start laying into him...so much so that he stops shooting LRMs at my team and focuses on how to get away from me. Sure, the same response is likely when being shot with any weapon, but the same thing happens when in my 3C or 5K pelting them with MGs and a single laser.

So, there is one example.

It's a terrible example. The same result would happen no matter what you were equipped with, with one exception.

If you were in a mech with real weapons, you could actually kill that LRM boat instead of just startling him. By running that MG Spider instead of... well, anything else... you've done less than what you would have. It wasn't the machine guns scaring him, it was the knowledge that someone had crept up on him. If you were in, say, a Commando or Jenner, he'd have been doomed.

This is a clear example of where machine guns are terrible and need to actually do damage.

AC, on 10 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

The purpose of MG is that they are a short range weapon that HAS NO HEAT. You swap heat for ammo dependance. 4MG should be about the same as 4ML, except you can fire them constantly without any heat issues.

At the very least, comparable to a small laser.

In tabletop, machine guns do the same damage as AC/2's. Which is reasonable, as both are one-slot weapons. The AC/2 is much heavier and generates a lot of heat, but it's one of the longest ranged (IS) weapons in the game, so that's a reasonable compromise.

[coolnames]

AC, on 10 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I hate the arguement from people that MG are not suppose to damage mech armor. They ARE, because that is how they were designed for Battletech. Download megamech and play any game and you will see that. In fact, MG were effective enough in tabletop that they made variants of them.

Regular MG
Light MG (more range)
Heavy MG (more damage)

Then they added MG arrays and the ability to rapid fire MG.

The purpose of MG is that they are a short range weapon that HAS NO HEAT. You swap heat for ammo dependance. 4MG should be about the same as 4ML, except you can fire them constantly without any heat issues.

People use that argument from the standpoint of how they are implemented into the game...not what they are in the cannon / tabletop of BT.

My thread is not for trying to argue that MGs need to be buffed/nerfed/changed, but that you can formulate a strategy and make them work as they are now

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

It's a terrible example. The same result would happen no matter what you were equipped with, with one exception.

Please re-read the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. I said just that in my example. But it negates the claim that 'MGs do NOT harrass and annoy,' for a scenario like that.

[Heeden]

Deamhan, on 10 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

So you compare 1 mpulse vs 4 mg?

How about 1mpulse vs 1 mg.....

Now keep in mind that you could have went longer with the mg (because it is % based) and the laser could've been instant for ya.

But what you really have to consider is the fact that with the space and tonnage the mg takes up, you can equip a more damaging laser and perhaps some more hs to fire that laser more often without overheating. The comparison needs to be between an optimal non machine gun load out vs your machine gun load out.

Then when you perform the experiment, you have to consider that with the optimal non machine gun loadout, you took the arm off with that shoulder. So with the mg load out, you have to strip the armor off both the side torso and arm and neutralize the weapons in both locations in order for it to be equivalent to what you did with the non mg load out.

You'll find that it takes you less time to simply destroy the side torso than it does to strip the armor off the side torso and arm and neutralize the weapons in both locations with an mg.

Firstly laser weapons only fit in to energy hard-points, no matter how many spare tons you have your ballistic slot will not fit a laser weapon. Also the other ballistic weapons are heavy - if I wanted to take a "proper" weapon I'd have to down-size my LLas for a medium and possibly drop speed or jump-jets to load more armour.

Secondly you seem to be assuming one-on-one situations where your strategy is geared towards stripping off weapons. I'm sure no-one disagrees that his is a poor strategy, MGs are more an opportunistic tool, if you see a mech with a vulnerable section you spray some machine gun fire and take out any equipment they have stored there. If you notice a section with red armour you weigh up the advantage of stripping it and taking out the weapons against getting a quicker kill. Small weapons like MLas can take a while to hit but you can strip ACs and L/SRMs whilst waiting for your primary weapon to cool-down.

Finally I disagree with the idea I should just take a better mech on principle. Not everyone wants to drive a 3L/Splat-cat/insert-fotm-mech-here. The great thing about this game is the ability to customise and experiment, and I'm thoroughly enjoying my jumping, sniping, occasionally fang-pulling Spider which has yielded some incredibly satisfying kills. True it may not compare favourably with the current crop of cheese but that doesn't stop it from being fun, which is the main reason I play this game.

[AC]

The problem with MG as strippers is that you have to be point blank close. This limits their usefulness even more.

[coolnames]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Firstly laser weapons only fit in to energy hard-points, no matter how many spare tons you have your ballistic slot will not fit a laser weapon. Also the other ballistic weapons are heavy - if I wanted to take a "proper" weapon I'd have to down-size my LLas for a medium and possibly drop speed or jump-jets to load more armour.

Secondly you seem to be assuming one-on-one situations where your strategy is geared towards stripping off weapons. I'm sure no-one disagrees that his is a poor strategy, MGs are more an opportunistic tool, if you see a mech with a vulnerable section you spray some machine gun fire and take out any equipment they have stored there. If you notice a section with red armour you weigh up the advantage of stripping it and taking out the weapons against getting a quicker kill. Small weapons like MLas can take a while to hit but you can strip ACs and L/SRMs whilst waiting for your primary weapon to cool-down.

Finally I disagree with the idea I should just take a better mech on principle. Not everyone wants to drive a 3L/Splat-cat/insert-fotm-mech-here. The great thing about this game is the ability to customise and experiment, and I'm thoroughly enjoying my jumping, sniping, occasionally fang-pulling Spider which has yielded some incredibly satisfying kills. True it may not compare favourably with the current crop of cheese but that doesn't stop it from being fun, which is the main reason I play this game.

Great post! Thanks!

AC, on 10 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The problem with MG as strippers is that you have to be point blank close. This limits their usefulness even more.

I like how you posted this 13 pages into the thread

[stjobe]

Well, this was a long read, with lots of people arguing back and forth on the usefulness of the MG.

I see a trend though, that the ones that find the MG useful are running heavies or assaults, and the ones finding them useless are running lights. And that's my main issue with the MG - I'm a light pilot at heart, and in BatlleTech a lot of lights use MGs as primary or secondary weapons.

In MWO, there's already a few: SDR-5K, RVN-4X, and the CDA-3C (although techically a medium). These 'mechs are severely handicapped by their ballistic hardpoints as long as the MG remains in the current implementation.

Soon we will also get the Flea, a 20-ton light that in one variant has a pair of ballistic hardpoints. Its only saving grace will be that it'll also have five energy hardpoints, so it can actually mount some decent weapons. But those ballistic hardpoints can't be filled by anything else but MGs - 7 tons for an AC/2 + ammo on a 20-ton 'mech isn't viable in the slightest, and dual AC/2s are impossible; they weigh too much. So it's MGs or nothing.

And would anyone care to do the numbers on what those two MGs contribute to a 5 x SL setup? That's right, nothing.
0.8 DPS vs 5.0 for the Small Lasers, 0.08 alpha versus 15 pin-point damage alpha. Even against something the SLs have stripped you'd be better off just waiting for the cooldown and remove the component outright with a 15 damage strike than to fire your MGs and hope to crit it.

I've said it so many times now, but I'll say it again: Remove the crit buff from the MG and just triple its damage. Instant viable light-weight ballistic weapon, on par with the Small Laser in the energy line.

[Heeden]

AC, on 10 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The problem with MG as strippers is that you have to be point blank close. This limits their usefulness even more.

That's true, but in the case of my Spider it isn't too much of a problem, especially as I love jumping over people's heads.

[Heeden]

stjobe, on 10 March 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Well, this was a long read, with lots of people arguing back and forth on the usefulness of the MG.

I see a trend though, that the ones that find the MG useful are running heavies or assaults, and the ones finding them useless are running lights. And that's my main issue with the MG - I'm a light pilot at heart, and in BatlleTech a lot of lights use MGs as primary or secondary weapons.

In MWO, there's already a few: SDR-5K, RVN-4X, and the CDA-3C (although techically a medium). These 'mechs are severely handicapped by their ballistic hardpoints as long as the MG remains in the current implementation.

Soon we will also get the Flea, a 20-ton light that in one variant has a pair of ballistic hardpoints. Its only saving grace will be that it'll also have five energy hardpoints, so it can actually mount some decent weapons. But those ballistic hardpoints can't be filled by anything else but MGs - 7 tons for an AC/2 + ammo on a 20-ton 'mech isn't viable in the slightest, and dual AC/2s are impossible; they weigh too much. So it's MGs or nothing.

And would anyone care to do the numbers on what those two MGs contribute to a 5 x SL setup? That's right, nothing.
0.8 DPS vs 5.0 for the Small Lasers, 0.08 alpha versus 15 pin-point damage alpha. Even against something the SLs have stripped you'd be better off just waiting for the cooldown and remove the component outright with a 15 damage strike than to fire your MGs and hope to crit it.

I've said it so many times now, but I'll say it again: Remove the crit buff from the MG and just triple its damage. Instant viable light-weight ballistic weapon, on par with the Small Laser in the energy line.

Tripling the damage would be so horribly OP...part of me really wants it. Just thinking of all the times I've been chasing other mechs plinking away when I could have had the firepower of 4 MLas completely heat-free *grins*.

The thing is ballistics tend to pay a lot more tonnage for damage than energies, and MGs have okay weight efficiency compared to the others. The problem isn't the way machine guns work, it's the lack of options between 0.5 and 6 tons. If you could get a 2 ton alternative that does 4 times the damage of MGs with an insignificant (but not entirely negligible) amount of heat I'm sure it would cater to a lot of people's needs.

[Sifright]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Finally I disagree with the idea I should just take a better mech on principle. Not everyone wants to drive a 3L/Splat-cat/insert-fotm-mech-here. The great thing about this game is the ability to customise and experiment, and I'm thoroughly enjoying my jumping, sniping, occasionally fang-pulling Spider which has yielded some incredibly satisfying kills. True it may not compare favourably with the current crop of cheese but that doesn't stop it from being fun, which is the main reason I play this game.

which only makes it all the more important that mgs can function as a proper weapon. calling a weapon "fun" is a ridiculous reason not to balance it properly in line with other weapons of its weight range.

[stjobe]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Tripling the damage would be so horribly OP...part of me really wants it. Just thinking of all the times I've been chasing other mechs plinking away when I could have had the firepower of 4 MLas completely heat-free *grins*.

I disagree completely. To get that 1.2 DPS you'd need to be on-target for 100% of the time. If you're like me with your MGs, you're closer to 50% accuracy, and then that 1.2 DPS is down to 0.6 DPS, and still the worst DPS in the game.

Edit: Also, the MG has way shorter range than the ML, and needs ammo that will run out.

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

The thing is ballistics tend to pay a lot more tonnage for damage than energies, and MGs have okay weight efficiency compared to the others. The problem isn't the way machine guns work, it's the lack of options between 0.5 and 6 tons. If you could get a 2 ton alternative that does 4 times the damage of MGs with an insignificant (but not entirely negligible) amount of heat I'm sure it would cater to a lot of people's needs.

No, you're right, the problem isn't the way the machine guns work, it's the fact that they do rubbish damage that's the problem. If they did okay damage we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Edited by stjobe, 10 March 2013 - 03:27 PM.

[Heeden]

Sifright, on 10 March 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

which only makes it all the more important that mgs can function as a proper weapon. calling a weapon "fun" is a ridiculous reason not to balance it properly in line with other weapons of its weight range.

What you still aren't understanding is MGs are not supposed to be a primary source of damage, any more than BAP or AMS is. The primary source of damage is the ERLLas in the chest. The machine guns are supplemental damage with utility.

[Terror Teddy]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Tripling the damage would be so horribly OP...part of me really wants it. Just thinking of all the times I've been chasing other mechs plinking away when I could have had the firepower of 4 MLas completely heat-free *grins*.

right now the total damage per tonne is 80 damage and takes 200 seconds to put out.

FOUR TIMES slower than the slowest ballistic weapon (ac5)
HALF damage than the average 150 per tonne of ballistics (ac5)

It needs a straight up damage bonus to at least 1, and still does half of AC/2's and all the other ballistic weapons got improved stats except mg's.

[Heeden]

Terror Teddy, on 10 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

right now the total damage per tonne is 80 damage and takes 200 seconds to put out.

FOUR TIMES slower than the slowest ballistic weapon (ac5)
HALF damage than the average 150 per tonne of ballistics (ac5)

It needs a straight up damage bonus to at least 1, and still does half of AC/2's and all the other ballistic weapons got improved stats except mg's.

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

What you still aren't understanding is MGs are not supposed to be a primary source of damage, any more than BAP or AMS is.

[FupDup]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

What you still aren't understanding is MGs are not supposed to be a primary source of damage, any more than BAP or AMS is. The primary source of damage is the ERLLas in the chest. The machine guns are supplemental damage with utility.

While I was trying to master my Raven 4X the past few days, I tried using 2MGs after dual-AC/2's decided to not properly reload in 0.5s. The MGs were not supplemental damage and did not provide me with any utility. The only thing that made that build decent was pecking people to death at long range with the 2 LL in the right arm. I've hosed exposed internals with hundreds of bullets game after game after game and I can't crit a damn thing. Other than a few lucky occasions, the only times I get component destructions are when my 2 LL destroy the whole section.

If the crit rate was 100%, then maybe they might be useful as component-strippers. Right now, they can't strip a damned thing half the time because it's RNG.

Edited by FupDup, 10 March 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[coolnames]

FupDup, on 10 March 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

While I was trying to master my Raven 4X the past few days, I tried using 2MGs after dual-AC/2's decided to not properly reload in 0.5s. The MGs were not supplemental damage and did not provide me with any utility. The only thing that made that build decent was pecking people to death at long range with the 2 LL in the right arm. I've hosed exposed internals with hundreds of bullets game after game after game and I can't crit a damn thing. Other than a few lucky occasions, I get component destructions are when my 2 LL destroy the whole section.

If the crit rate was 100%, then maybe they might be useful as component-strippers. Right now, they can't strip a damned thing half the time because it's RNG.

Cool that you tried them out, sorry you didn't have good results

[stjobe]

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

What you still aren't understanding is MGs are not supposed to be a primary source of damage, any more than BAP or AMS is. The primary source of damage is the ERLLas in the chest.

And why should one weapon out of all the weapons in the game be relegated to a "not a primary weapon" status, comparable to modules and anti-LRM equipment? Especially when that weapon was exactly as deadly against 'mechs as an AC/2 in BattleTech?

Heeden, on 10 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

The machine guns are supplemental damage with utility.

No, they're not. They could be, if they did about two to three times as much damage as they currently do, but as implemented? No.