340 replies to this topic

[Riffleman]

reduce machinegun ammo to 400 rounds/ton, double tabletop
make machineguns shoot 10 bullet bursts that last as long as a small laser burst.
make them do 2 damage in that time, with a firing cooldown the same as the small laser.

now you have a no-heat alternative to small lasers, that trades heat for danger of ammo explosion and weight of ammo. Also you have a balanced decent weapon with a 90 meter range, that isnt garbage.

Crits are stupid, this was the correct way to do machineguns. The faster they figure this out and change it, the faster we dont need videos defending poorly implemented if cool weapons like the original.

Your side cannot have a mech that relies on others doing the real work for them.

[Monky]

If engine crits where in, I'd consider it as a -backup- weapon for a mech already mounting a reasonable amount of other stuff.

AS IT STANDS there are mechs completely crippled by being only able to use machineguns and one other weapon in order to get the most out of their hardpoints. It's a joke, stop trying to justify it. If you can't get the armor off and score a killing blow with it as a primary weapon, it shouldn't be in the game.

Small lasers can do this, how do you justify MG's (and flamers and lbx) not being able to effectively?

Edited by Monky, 07 March 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

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.

[FupDup]

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.

Spider 5K, Raven 4X, and Cicada 3C would like to have a word with you.

Edited by FupDup, 07 March 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[Team Leader]

Riffleman, on 07 March 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

reduce machinegun ammo to 400 rounds/ton, double tabletop
make machineguns shoot 10 bullet bursts that last as long as a small laser burst.
make them do 2 damage in that time, with a firing cooldown the same as the small laser.

now you have a no-heat alternative to small lasers, that trades heat for danger of ammo explosion and weight of ammo. Also you have a balanced decent weapon with a 90 meter range, that isnt garbage.

Crits are stupid, this was the correct way to do machineguns. The faster they figure this out and change it, the faster we dont need videos defending poorly implemented if cool weapons like the original.

Your side cannot have a mech that relies on others doing the real work for them.

I would rather it be constant stream, it would be the only weapon in the game that could do that, plus for the sake of dakka power. However I agree that it should be on par with a SL and not just doomed to a "crit seeker", aka a useless weapon without organized team efforts and focused fire.

[Vassago Rain]

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.

Except you're wrong on all accounts.

[Mahws]

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.

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.

[Tarriss Halcyon]

To all those people saying that RVN-4X needs MGs, did you know that you could take EVERYTHING ELSE OUT of the mech to mount AN AC20 or a GAUSS??? I hate Ravens as it is, but ones mounting MGs are only ever good when you have two or three 4Xs with LLs and MGs working with a single 3L or other ECM mech with better armor-stripping weaponry. IN other words, MGs are next to useless away from the swarm, and in the swarm, if you lose the 3L, you'd wish you'd brought a stronger mech.

[coolnames]

Tarriss Halcyon, on 07 March 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

To all those people saying that RVN-4X needs MGs, did you know that you could take EVERYTHING ELSE OUT of the mech to mount AN AC20 or a GAUSS???

I used to run gauss in my two Cicadas with ballistic slots and snipe with them...was fun, but not a scout.

[Monky]

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.

No. Wrong. Machine guns are anti-mech weapons that later got bonuses to infantry and soft targets. Additionally, 'play like the rest of us' ? Whatever. Had they instead been called mini-cannons or light auto cannons, you would not even be able to conceive of this idea that a weapon system designed to fight mechs and later upgraded to fight infantry should somehow be bad at fighting mechs.

Edited by Monky, 07 March 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Vassago Rain, on 07 March 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

I'd rather take actual guns that let me blow the other guy up.
And a mech that's not a waste of a team slot.

And no, MGs started out as an anti mech weapon. Kind of like the "machine guns" on fighter jets.

They're supposed to do two points of damage to one location, with small laser range. It would be incredibly easy for PGI to do that in MWO, they would just need to seriously buff the per-bullet damage, or make them a cooldown weapon. I really wish they'd just make it identical to the small laser (half second "beam time" 2.25 second cooldown two damage) and be done with the entire "OMG DO MORE CRITS RAWR" krap.

[Monky]

Vermaxx, on 07 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

And no, MGs started out as an anti mech weapon. Kind of like the "machine guns" on fighter jets.

They're supposed to do two points of damage to one location, with small laser range. It would be incredibly easy for PGI to do that in MWO, they would just need to seriously buff the per-bullet damage, or make them a cooldown weapon. I really wish they'd just make it identical to the small laser (half second "beam time" 2.25 second cooldown two damage) and be done with the entire "OMG DO MORE CRITS RAWR" krap.

The cooldown idea works best, because if you're using anything other than MG's, you have to aim in a different spot, which means you're missing with MG's, therefore situationally lowering their DPS. Putting them on a cooldown like small lasers lets them be part of a firing rotation. The downtime would have to be rolled into the bullet damage of course, however it is the -ideal- solution.

[Praehotec8]

I can't really see much point in critting out weapons on unarmored parts when a heavier weapon will just blow up the part just as quickly (then again, I pilot heavies and assaults for a reason).

[Vermaxx]

Half second beam (like a small), 2.25 second cooldown (like a small), 2 damage (one less than a small).
*edit* I'm even fine with it having a shorter max range than a small laser.

Perfectly balanced into the currently "sort of balanced MASSIVE ROF INCREASE" system, and it never ever ever outshines a small laser. Considering no one is freaking out about mechs carrying 9 small lasers, no one is going to care if a mech shows up with (at best someday, unless the Piranha gets coded in) six machine guns.

Six lead-based small lasers doing less damage than the energy equivalent? Terrifying.

I'm done with this 'weapons that sound cool, look cool, function terribly' thing PGI is using for MG and flamers. They're like a dog with a bone, but the bone is old and dry and needs to be thrown out.

Edited by Vermaxx, 07 March 2013 - 07:38 PM.

[coolnames]

I edited the first post in the thread with another video comparing a single medium pulse laser to the 4x machine guns. Check it out.

[Goldsan]

Impressive. You still couldn't pay me to fit them on anything that can fit anything else, though, and at that point you should probably just play a better chassis.

[Vermaxx]

I especially love how aggressively PGI defends and advertises machine guns. The ballistic Spider is a terrible mech, terrible. And yet they tell us how good a MG is at cracking items. Yes, it is really good at critting items, both from its massive ROF and its massive crit bonus.

It wouldn't need a massive crit bonus, and in fact that feature would be monstrously OP, if the MG just functioned like any other sane weapon in MWO. Same for flamers.

NO PLAYER CLASS IN ANY NON-RESPAWN GAME should be taken as an aggro/kill assist unit without the ability to kill its own targets.

[Mahws]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

I edited the first post in the thread with another video comparing a single medium pulse laser to the 4x machine guns. Check it out.

Cool, now could we see a real comparison, with 5 tonnes of energy weapons vs. that 5 tonnes of MPL+MG? Two MPL + One ML would destroy the side torso in about seven seconds, which also takes off the entire arm. As an added bonus you could also defend yourself from another light mech or remove the armor covering that weapon yourself.

MGs aren't useless, but they're completely underpowered compared to any mech of the same tonnage with real weapons.

EDIT:
Number crunching fun!

In your video MPL+Machine guns takes ~13 seconds to strip the armor, then almost instant destruction of a weapon.

Same tonnage in energy weapons, 2MPL + 1ML would strip the armor in about 4 seconds then destroy the component in an additional seven. Making it ~11 seconds to strip the armor, then destroy the weapons AND the component as well as the arm attached.

Conclusion: MGs still worse at removing weapons from an enemy.

Edited by Mahws, 07 March 2013 - 08:16 PM.

[One Medic Army]

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.

[coolnames]

Mahws, on 07 March 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Cool, now could we see a real comparison, with 5 tonnes of energy weapons vs. that 5 tonnes of MPL+MG? Two MPL + One ML would destroy the side torso in about seven seconds, which also takes off the entire arm. As an added bonus you could also defend yourself from another light mech or remove the armor covering that weapon yourself.

MGs aren't useless, but they're completely underpowered compared to any mech of the same tonnage with real weapons.

EDIT:
Number crunching fun!

In your video MPL+Machine guns takes ~13 seconds to strip the armor, then almost instant destruction of a weapon.

Same tonnage in energy weapons, 2MPL + 1ML would strip the armor in about 4 seconds then destroy the component in an additional seven. Making it ~11 seconds to strip the armor, then destroy the weapons AND the component as well as the arm attached.

Conclusion: MGs still worse at removing weapons from an enemy.

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.