340 replies to this topic

[coolnames]

One Medic Army, on 07 March 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Not to mention that in your second video you're comparing a MPL (which has short beam duration as it's largest asset) to MGs, which are a constant-stream weapon.
In actual game use that MPL needs to be held on target for .75sec each time you shoot, whereas the MGs need to be held on target constantly.

Oh, and you did some crit damage to that AC/20 with the MPL, even with the crit dmg/sec of MGs it'd still take a little while to take out an AC20 since they boosted the hitpoints.
Try the same thing, but shoot the MGs on the left side torso of the atlas, the number of weapons/components matters.

Lol at nitpicking. The point is that I can haul butt in a scout and spray the MGs everywhere in a large mech battle and, most likely, will destroy a component from unaimed random fire alone.

If you do not see that value in that, then I guess there is nothing more I can say or show you to help you understand the viability of MGs.

Edited by coolnames, 07 March 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[One Medic Army]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Lol at nitpicking. The point is that I can haul butt in a scout and spray the MGs everywhere in a large mech battle and, most likely, will destroy a component from unaimed random fire alone.

If you do not see that value in that, then I guess there is nothing more I can say or show you to help you understand the viability of MGs.

I play Jenners. I prefer to strip the armor myself and then kill the mech.

The entire utility of MGs hinges on someone else stripping the armor off of your target for you.

Critting will be valid when and if engine, gyro, and actuator crits are implemented. Until then it's a gimmick.

Edited by One Medic Army, 07 March 2013 - 08:45 PM.

[Team Leader]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Lol at nitpicking. The point is that I can haul butt in a scout and spray the MGs everywhere in a large mech battle and, most likely, will destroy a component from unaimed random fire alone.

If you do not see that value in that, then I guess there is nothing more I can say or show you to help you understand the viability of MGs.

Cool names, you can't win this one. You and gamer guy I don't recall his name are defending MGs in their current form, as intended by PGI,and they work exactly as intended by PGI in their current from. I don't think anybody will argue that they CAN'T almost insta-kill components. However, that's not the problem with MGs. The problem is that nearly NOBODY else wants them like that, they just want them to do straight damage, without this silly crit buff stuff. They just want them to work like in TT, which is 2 damage per round, which is ACTUAL ARMOR damage.

Edited by Team Leader, 07 March 2013 - 08:45 PM.

[Mahws]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Bro, there you go again talking about stripping armor....that is not the point.

I use MGs on my scouts and I run around and only shoot the MGs at unarmored locations on enemies. When their weapons are destroyed, I move to either another vulnerable location, or to a new enemy target.

Why is that hard to comprehend. I only see one counter argument as valid, and that is that the multi projectile hardpoint light/medium mechs are undesirable...but that is just opinion and personal preference.

That is the point though.
A light mech with weapons that do actual damage will disable MORE enemy fire power in a match than one boating MGs. You're talking it up as a support mech, but if you pair an Atlas with a Spider-5D it will strip the armor and disable the weapons on an enemy FASTER than an Atlas that has to do all the work itself before a 5K can come in with its machine guns and contribute.

Machine guns work as advertised, they can contribute to a team and contribute well, but they're still straight up a worse choice than a weapon that can do real damage even when you focus solely on how much enemy firepower they can neutralize in a match.

Edited by Mahws, 07 March 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[Mavairo]

No you shouldn't use MGs


By the time the enemy mech's parts are fried thanks to MG fire, you could have already fried the components entire structure with another weapon.

There's nothing MGs do well sadly. Total waste of 2 tons.

[coolnames]

One Medic Army, on 07 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

I play Jenners. I prefer to strip the armor myself and then kill the mech.

So what you are really saying is that MGs aren't conducive to your play style!!

Team Leader, on 07 March 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

They just want them to work like in TT

That is fine. There are perfectly good tactics to use a mg loadout. Maybe it is not what they want, but it works.

Mavairo, on 07 March 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

No you shouldn't use MGs

/facepalm
Guess you didn't watch/listen to the video

Edited by coolnames, 07 March 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Mavairo]

Why would I? I have my own.

In a controlled environment no less.

The MG blows dude, maybe you should watch the above vid.

Edited by Mavairo, 07 March 2013 - 09:08 PM.

[Haj Podge]

I think part of the problem with the whole "crit seeking" role is that the crit system isn't final yet. The devs have said they will be tweaking component HP, and I am guessing more than a few components will have HP reduced which will increase the potential for MGs to crit components faster than other weapons can remove that section. Any weapon I can take out before it has a chance to fire again is less damage to me or my teammates, which I see as a good thing. Engine crits actually having an effect would also really enhance the effectiveness of MGs. The large amount of internal HP some of the larger mechs have would make using MGs to crit the engine a viable option.

I would like to see the range buffed to 250-300m as that would give them a bit more utility (I know that it isn't "canon", but the mechanics are completely different from TT so they don't actually need to gimp the range in order to balance them). Basically I think the crit system needs to be finished before a judgement can be made on MG effectiveness. If they still suck then, I promise to join the rest of you in calling for a straight damage increase, and will petition the devs to boost the rate of fire to 100 rounds per second. Cause you can never have enough dakka.

Edited by Haj Podge, 07 March 2013 - 09:54 PM.

[coolnames]

Mavairo, on 07 March 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

Why would I? I have my own.

In a controlled environment no less.

The MG blows dude, maybe you should watch the above vid.

What a BM response, but that's ok, I won't hold it against you.

I watched your video. What were you trying to show? That MGs are not good for straight up damage when playing a Dragon? lol...

Maybe educate yourself with other's arguments before throwing out your own? <3

[Monky]

I think I get it.... he's going for the long troll..... niiiiiiice.

[Noobzorz]

So I agree MGs suck, and are a waste of space, and the necessary conditions needed for them to outperform an equivalent weight in energy weapons are so ludicrously specific that you could play a thousand matches and not have been better off with your MGs than you would have with lasers in one of them. But I really like this crit seeking idea. Why not give MGs some plausible functionality as weapons, but keep the crit seeking in a substantially toned down form?

I really want to use these things and not hate myself for it because they're so cool.

[MayGay]

ok so I can wreck everything in a component with an mg. but really you need to also be able to strip off the armour first, and after the armour is off t's best just to destroy the component anyway, more XP and money and more effective, also it's hard to hold an mg. on a moving target and easy to shield the damaged component with an armoured component

in other words a medium laser and a small laser, both of which don't rely on ammo, are supirior

now if we had infantry to fight, that would be a different story

Edited by James Griffin, 07 March 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Phades]

Mahws, on 07 March 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

They're gigantic half tonne weapons, not tiny Real Life^TM machine guns. That and TT has them doing as much damage to armor as an AC2, so you could make the exact same argument for them.

Many do unfortunately and consider it justified. The LBX-2 being the most LAWL inducing weapon of the bunch. Also considering flamers and inferno munitions existed which auto killed ICE and infantry on proper die rolls, the argument was rather pointless.

[Terror Teddy]

Gremlich Johns, on 07 March 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Machineguns have never been intended as an armor defeating weapon - anti-infantry and anti materiel (like trucks and jeeps, etc, not something as massive as a mech) You are seeking a low weight, low/no heat way to destroy mechs. Play like the rest of us. Frankly, without elementals/battle armor or in-game infantry, there really is no need for MGs.

Mech mountedmachineguns are vehicle mounted non-man portable weapon ARRAYS.

1.Not a singular weapon
2. Not a .50 caliber but 20 to 40mm vehicle mounted machine guns like ship mounted anti aircraft guns,
3. 20mm anti-aircraft machine guns have shells twice the sixe of the .50, are twin barreled and weights, with mounting around 180 kilograms. The US 40mm GRENADE machinegun weights 50 kilograms - add 50 for mounting and you have X5 40mm explosive shells in rapid fire that can 5 grenades per second on target in that 500 kilogram weight of the MG.
4. BT "Infantry" includes POWER ARMOR TROOPS.
5. BT machineguns do the same damage as the AC2 but MORE damage to infantry as they get a BONUS against them
6. Each BULLET in the MG magazine is 0,5 kilograms.

They are not crit seeking weapons limited to take out mere foot infantry as what mechs carry are far heavier than what we today would call anti-infantry.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 07 March 2013 - 10:33 PM.

[Roadbuster]

If you use MGs as primary weapons...bad idea and not the intended use for them.

I'm running 3MGs in a DRG-5N paired with 2 LPL and a SRM6. They work very well.
For some loadouts there just isn't enough tonnage left to put in any ACs at a minimum of 7t.

There is also the psychological effect. MG impacts make players nervous even if they know they deal crap damage.
So even if they don't deal much damage against armor it's worth using them.

Edited by Roadbuster, 08 March 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[coolnames]

Roadbuster, on 07 March 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

If you use MGs as primary weapons...bad idea and not the intended use for them.

I'm running 3MGs in a DRG-5N waired with 2 LPL and a SRM6. They work very well.
For some loadouts there just isn't enough tonnage left to put in any ACs at a minimum of 7t.

There is also the psychological effect. MG impacts make players nervous even if they know they deal crap damage.
So even if they don't deal much damage against armor it's worth using them.

Highfive! You are right, they are great for harassment too

[Johnny Reb]

I have been running 2 machine guns w 1 ton of ammo in my cent D for just this purpose. Before, I had no ballistics in it and my downgrade from a large pulse laser to an er large laser was not difficult to make up those 2 tons.

[Terror Teddy]

Roadbuster, on 07 March 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

If you use MGs as primary weapons...bad idea and not the intended use for them.

And that reasoning does not truly hold water.

For mechs where ballistic weapons ARE the primary weapon and they LACK the weight for anything heavy then they are useless on the field UNTIL someone ELSE can strip the armor.

What you then get is a gimped chassis that cannot stand on it's own because they have CHANGED a weapon into a crit seeker that cannot function a long as the enemy has any armor.

MG's needs to be a viable weapon and do ACTUAL damage and not just be used when the enemy is already half dead.

Take a 30 ton spider with 4 MG's and a medium laser against a 30 ton spider with 3 medium lasers.

Who wins?

I bet it's not the one that can run out of ammo.

[Vermaxx]

I'm glad some people find a use for machine guns in their present form.

They do not function the way any other weapon (save flamers) function in MWO. And that is - as a primary weapon. Even small lasers, which by the way were really only last ditch / rear facing weapons in tabletop. Seriously, a weapon with a range of 3 hex (90m) and at that range it was +4 to hit, that only does 3 damage? Sure, only one heat, but the negatives outweighed it pretty hard.

It was a great 'last shot' gun because one heat almost never mattered. They couldn't be primary weapons unless you were fast as hell, had a bunch of them, and won initiative. Otherwise every enemy would just stay 4 hex away from you, where you couldn't do shart.

In MWO, the small laser is terrifying, because it shoots often, has a short beam duration, almost every map has clusterfork areas built into it, and almost every match devolves into a brawlfest. Weapons also hit where you aim, all of them.

So, the small laser got good. The AC2 got AMAZING, the medium laser was so overpowered they had to narf the cooldown rate AND raise heat.

The MG and flamers, got shart upon. Whereas a medium laser can fire three or four times in the 'ten second window' that tabletop represented; a machine gun can fire "twice." It takes five seconds to apply two damage with a machine gun.

Let's relate that to lasers - say your medium laser took five seconds to apply five damage. NO ONE would call that fair. Hell, let's even it up and say your SMALL LASER took five seconds. It only does three damage, that's not much, maybe IT was designed to fight infantry too!

No? Ok then, stop with this "MG aren't primary weapons" krap. NOTHING in BT was a primary or secondary weapon. Everything had pros and cons, mainly range and heat. Everything was a primary weapon because everything functioned on a basic playing field.

PGI ported the basic playing field math into MWO, and then seriously amped the rates of fire. They chose to make machine guns and flamers into constant fire cool-looking-cool-sounding weapons, but this cannot balance with the rest of the system.

MGs (and flamer) are the way they are because their damage in previous games was much higher, and their rate of fire was nearly auto or fully auto. As such, they were terribly op. PGI was afraid of that happening here and both got preemptive strikes.

The MG is not even a backup weapon in MWO. It is not worth slotting. No, it is not worth downgrading your large pulse to an ER (btw ER large are still terrible) to take machine guns for critwork. The mg has a higher "dps" against internals, fine, but you are better off with real weapons capable of punching armor and cutting off components.

It's time to cut out this autofire thing for machine guns. Turn it into a small laser. Hell, turn it into a one-damage-per-shot weapon with a .25 second beam duration and let it fire twice in the about-three-seconds it takes a small laser to fire and cycle.

MGs and flamers look and sound cool. I have never played a game where a weapon was worth taking just because it looked and sounded cool, unless it also functioned properly. The MG does not function properly by tabletop. It does not even function on the same amped damage potentials as everything else.

Stop telling us what MGs are supposed to be used for. Most of us know the gimmick PGI expects us to use them in, and we don't like it. We want MGs that are capable of being what they are supposed to be: scaled up vehicle-mounted short range cannons capable of doing two points of damage to MECH ARMOR in a reasonable amount of time.

Five seconds, wherein all bullets must hit the same location to really be effective, is not reasonable.

[MustrumRidcully]

Prosperity Park, on 07 March 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

It's a good thing the authors of the video stated very specifically that the machine gun should not be used as a primary weapon, then. Yay for everybody agreeing!

I haven't taken the time to run a few drops in the testing grounds, but now I wanna see how well my old 2 PPC, 3 MG Hunchback-4G does...

So I should bring the 4 MG Spider only as secondary mech, too?

Ever wondered how that video would look like if you got two mechs not using MGs but real weapons? How quickly that would end with the destruction of an enemy mech, compared to merely the destruction of his weapons in one of 8 possible hit locations?