340 replies to this topic

[Buckminster]

I'll agree with you on that one. I had a very hard time adjusting to MW:O because I was an old school TT player, and all of the old paradigms went out the window.

Once I got used to the idea of MW:O as a Battletech inspired game, and *not* the game I grew up with, it got a lot easier to deal with all of the differences.

Because you are right in that regard - in TT, I would have never used MGs. First thing I always did when playing was strip the MGs and ammo and add two medium lasers. But then again, in TT, 20 DHS would be more than enough to keep to ERPPCs cool. So different times call for different measures.

Edited by Buckminster, 11 March 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Buckminster, on 11 March 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

The thing about the direct comparison is that you are comparing apples and oranges. In their current state, MGs are *not* going to match evenly to other weapons. Sure, a pair of small lasers may be more effective than a pair of MGs. But when matched up on a real world (lol, I know it's not real) mech, it may not be.

That's the thing, real world is not a good balancing measure for a fiction game based on Battle Tech. Battle Tech may be influenced by the real-world, but the size and scale of things in Mech Warrior Land is far bigger than some people realize.

A Machine Gun in Battle Tech is not an M60, M249, MG42, etc.

Let's look at an Piranha, for example, whoever drew this at Catalyst knew exactly what a Mech Sized .25 Ton Clan 'Machine Gun,' would look like that does 2 Damage in BT\TT:



Troll Piranha Warrior - "Hey Commando, check out my 12 MG's that do 2 Damage Each"

Consternated Commando Warrior - "Oh, s***!"



Even the Machine Gun in game is larger than that real-life Gau-8.

A Machine Gun (and Small Laser) in Battle Tech weigh half a ton, that is 1,000lbs. That is why I am noting the equivalence. Its not something that any normal person could just walk around with, it requires a platform to use (like a jet, tank, or Mech). Its the size and weight of huge cannons on Jets in our real-world which have shells that can literally punch through armor. The Machine Gun in Battle Tech simple has that unforunate name applied to it.

The only 'apple to oranges,' difference between an MG and Small Laser of Battle Tech, is that an MG is Ballistic (ammo-based) and Small Laser, is well, a Laser (no ammo, instant, heat-based). Both are extremely close in damage out put and have the same range. Even a Mech "Heavy Machine Gun" actually does the same damage of 3 as a Small Laser in Battle Tech.

If one were to compare an AC/2 to a Machine Gun, they both do 2 damage, but they do so in a different context. A MG does 2 Damage for 0 heat, but it has a disadvantage in range and low ammunition. An AC/2 does 2 Damage, for 1 heat, has extreme range, but its disadvantage is basically its weight and even lower ammunition.

And as noted many times, when 92% of the weapons in MWO can front-load their damage output with full digits (not decimals like the MG of 0.04), there is a problem. That means 92% of the weapons basically have their exact or better damage equivalence from Battle Tech. And there is a further problem by having variants with MG's, that may or may not be used as Trial Mechs.

That is why this is such a major concern, because they were balanced wrong in a completely non-linear fashion. This game will never have infantry to shoot at it or play as, there are only Mechs as targets. Even Mech Warrior 3 balanced MG's right, but in that game you could boat them like crazy. However, MWO also has hard point limitations so if an MG were made to be a closer interpretation to its TT equivalent damage output (or similar DPS) with a very low ammo supply, it would be very well balanced.

Edited by General Taskeen, 11 March 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Ryllen Kriel]

I'm hoping for an ejection mode in this game for non-cockpit destroyed mechs where I can run around on foot in a hostile environment suit and set up anti-mech mines between buildings. Then the machine guns can do their job as anti-personel!

[Buckminster]

I meant 'real world' as in "part of a mech that is involved in actual combat against other piloted mechs", as opposed to weapons compared on the training grounds. I've seen people go in the Training Grounds and say "this is why MGs suck!" or "this is why MGs rule!", when that doesn't show the whole picture. The MGs are not a standalone piece, they are part of a 65 ton mech system (well, 65 tons for my Cat at least).

I love my MGs when combined with the ERPPCs of my K2. But on my Raven 4X, I use an AC/20. Without actual damage-inducing weapons, MGs *are* a waste of space.

[Sifright]

Buckminster, on 11 March 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I love my MGs when combined with the ERPPCs of my K2. But on my Raven 4X, I use an AC/20. Without actual damage-inducing weapons, MGs *are* a waste of space.

I don't disagree the problem is light mechs are supposed to treat mgs as their damage dealers. If they do they are rubbish.

not great is it?

[Heeden]

Sifright, on 11 March 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

I don't disagree the problem is light mechs are supposed to treat mgs as their damage dealers. If they do they are rubbish.

not great is it?

The only stock mech that comes close to relying on MGs for damage is the Spider 5K, which also carries 1 MLas. If you compare it to the 5V (2 MLas) and 5D (1 MLas, 1 Flamer) you'll see any issues it has come from the fact Spiders in general are not kitted out to be damage dealers.

[Buckminster]

I do have to wonder how MG damage is actually calculated. It's officially listed as "0.04", but it's 0.04 per what? Every other weapon out there has a very definite damage period. Ballistics and PPCs are per hit. LRMs and SRMs are per missile. Lasers are per beam duration. But MGs fire infinitely, so there is no discernible "shot" that does 0.04 damage.

If the MG is considered to do 0.04 per 'shot', and shoots 25 times per second, that's 1 damage per second of continuous firing. If it's calculated as 50 shots per second, than you are back up to the 2 damage of TT MGs.

I'll have to do some playing around in the testing grounds - maybe take a single MG and see how long it takes to strip the arm off of a mech. That should give a rough idea of the actual DPS of a MG.

[Heeden]

MG fires 10 shots per second.

[Sifright]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 March 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

No, that's okay. At least it looks assymetrical from the outside.

But taking a symmetric mech and putting an assymetrical loadout in it? That's just wrong.

How do they not fall over

[stjobe]

Buckminster, on 11 March 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I do have to wonder how MG damage is actually calculated.

Wonder no more, it's not a secret:

MGs fire 10 projectiles per second, each projectile doing 0.04 damage to armour or internal structure, and 0.5 crit damage to components if it crits. It also has an increased crit percentage compared to other weapons, making it crit more often:

The MG has a 39% chance to do a single crit, a 24% chance to do a double crit, and a 6% chance to do a triple crit (as compared to 25%, 14%, and 3% for other weapons). All in all, the MG has a 69% chance to crit as opposed to a 42% chance of the other weapons.

This boils down to (firing 100 bullets during 10 seconds against an armour-stripped location):
31 non-crits (for 1.24 damage to internal structure)
39 single crits for 0.5 damage = 19.5 damage
24 double crits for 1 damage = 24 damage
6 triple crits for 1.5 damage = 9 damage
Sum it all up and divide by 10 = 5.25 DPS

So, the MG has a DPS of 0.4 against armour and internal structure, but a DPS of 5.25 against internal components.

And that's part of the issue some of us have against the current implementation of MGs. It is very effective against exposed internals, but it is the single worst weapon to actually get to the point where that effectiveness comes into play.

Edited by stjobe, 11 March 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

stjobe, on 11 March 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Wonder no more, it's not a secret: MGs fire 10 projectiles per second, each projectile doing 0.04 damage to armour or internal structure, and 0.5 damage to components. It also has an increased crit percentage compared to other weapons, making it crit more often:

The MG has a 39% chance to do a single crit, a 24% chance to do a double crit, and a 6% chance to do a triple crit (as compared to 25%, 14%, and 3% for other weapons). All in all, the MG has a 66% chance to crit as opposed to a 42% chance of the other weapons.

Wonderful stats if it didnt take the MGs 200 seconds to do the 80 damage per tonne which is about 40% of all other ballistics per tonne.

It simply takes to long to do any damage.

All LRM's for example to the SAME damage per tonne
All SRM's do the same damage per tonne.
All ballistics do 125-150 per tonne (except MG) in under 51 seconds

The next comparison would perhaps be how much damage per max heat energy weapons do to compare their damage vs recycle rate as they dont have ammunition to calculate on.

MG's damage VS possible crit chance with the time it takes to emty one tonne of ammo simply does not add up.

[Yokaiko]

You should never use machine guns, they are totally ****.

[Terror Teddy]

Yokaiko, on 11 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

You should never use machine guns, they are totally ****.

Unless they worked as extremely short range AC/2's like they should. Fun comparison.

DPS:
AC/2: 4
MG's: 0,4 (1/10) Seriously - 1/10 of original value???

Heat
AC/2: 1
MG's: 0 (as they should)

Range
AC/2: 2160
MG's: 200 (as they should)

Speed:
AC/2: 2000
MG's: 100 (they are as slow as the gracefully flying LRM's for christ sake)

Not to mention how long it takes to actually emty one tonne of ammo none of these numbers makes any sense whatsoever.

[Sixart]

Y'all keep typing words, I'll keep uploading videos.

[Thirdstar]

Sixart, on 12 March 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Y'all keep typing words, I'll keep uploading videos.

That's nice dear.

[Buckminster]

Sixart, on 12 March 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Y'all keep typing words, I'll keep uploading videos.

Dude, nice dog cave. :-)

[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.

[Psikez]

Machine guns are bad and you should feel necroed.

Seriously fix this freaking weapon

[Sifright]

Psikez, on 09 April 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Machine guns are bad and you should feel necroed.

Seriously fix this freaking weapon

I feel so necro... >: |

[Psikez]

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I feel so necro... >: |

Theres not a lot I agree on with the forums but my god machine guns are bad.