229 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Bobzilla, on 25 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

If a MG did 1 dps, 2 of them would do more dps than a LRM10, take 1/2 the slots, be 1/5th the weight and you wouldn't have to worry about heat (equal to 11 SHS) and you would get more ammo.

What are you people thinking? It's like asking for any other weapon to have over double its dps because it doesn't do enough for its weight/slots/heat.

At minimum, MG damage needs to be at least double what it does now... to even make up for the fact that they are still not scaled like their AC brethren.

[ICEFANG13]

Bobzilla, on 25 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

If a MG did 1 dps, 2 of them would do more dps than a LRM10, take 1/2 the slots, be 1/5th the weight and you wouldn't have to worry about heat (equal to 11 SHS) and you would get more ammo.

What are you people thinking? It's like asking for any other weapon to have over double its dps because it doesn't do enough for its weight/slots/heat.

Don't forget current LRMs are terrible and also can shoot our to 1000 M (hit no, but shoot? YES!)

Its not crazy, as good as a small laser? With ammo and constant fire required? If anything, double is needed (.8) and still no one would use them.

[Peiper]

YES! Machine guns with 2 damage! That way I could take 6 for the weight of ONE AC/2. Gimme a break. Machine guns are on mechs to clear infantry. And machine gun arrays are just stupid. They wouldn't put them on mechs for the same reason you don't arm a Tiger tank with 200 machine guns. 200 machine guns still wouldn't touch a mid to late war Russian tank. (Hyperbole fits, go with it.)

Hell, even a quad .2 cm flak gun would only damage the tracks, if they got some good lucky shots in.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 30 March 2013 - 10:17 AM.
Removed Off-topic Remarks

[Pinselborste]

Peiper, on 28 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

YES! Machine guns with 2 damage! That way I could take 6 for the weight of ONE AC/2. Gimme a break. Machine guns are on mechs to clear infantry. And machine gun arrays are just stupid. They wouldn't put them on mechs for the same reason you don't arm a Tiger tank with 200 machine guns. 200 machine guns still wouldn't touch a mid to late war Russian tank. (Hyperbole fits, go with it.)

Hell, even a quad .2 cm flak gun would only damage the tracks, if they got some good lucky shots in.

[REDACTED]

MGs where in the tabletop game before infantry was, they where supposed to be used against mechs.
they dealt the same damage as an AC2 to a mech but with way lower range.

Edited by Viterbi, 30 March 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Peiper]

Pinselborste, on 29 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

MGs where in the tabletop game before infantry was, they where supposed to be used against mechs.
they dealt the same damage as an AC2 to a mech but with way lower range.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Still makes no sense regarding their statistics. However, if you read the fluff along with the mech entries like in TRO 2750, it usually says the machine guns are there to deal with infantry - even if there was none in the game.

[Pinselborste]

yes, they are used to kill infantry cause they get a bonus to kill them, but it dosnt mean that they are useless against mechs.

Edited by Pinselborste, 29 March 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[psyduckbill]

I just looked up table top and machine guns are 2 dmg vs small laser which are 3. Going by that thought the dps should be close to a small laser in MWO. I think boosting them to about .75 DPS would be about right, you could get some meaningful damage off a cluster of machine guns but they wouldnt be equal to a small laser which I think the intent was. This way machine guns are viable and arent over shadowing small lasers. I think at equal Dps that would diminish small lasers vaule too much. I think the crit Damage should be left as is.

[Pinselborste]

cause of the spread in mwo, they should get same damage as small laser, you cant concentrate fire at more than 8 meters.

[Skyfaller]

Why should an MG match a small laser in damage when both have the exact same range and one costs more tonnage due to ammo? Please don't say heat since small laser generates negligible heat.

With that in mind, why should MG's even get an increase in damage? The bullets are nowhere near the caliber of an AC2 so why should it to damage matching or slightly higher than the AC2 per firing time (aka AC2 reload time)? Makes no sense.

I still say to simply add a very low chance of an MG bullet bypassing armor and hitting internals. That ALONE makes the MG or using a mass of MG's damn worth it. If you can use the thing to basically pop every internal component (that player can add in mechbay) or cause ammo explosions then the weapon is justified.

[Pinselborste]

Skyfaller, on 30 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I still say to simply add a very low chance of an MG bullet bypassing armor and hitting internals. That ALONE makes the MG or using a mass of MG's damn worth it. If you can use the thing to basically pop every internal component (that player can add in mechbay) or cause ammo explosions then the weapon is justified.

it wont help the mg at all, it deals 0.04 damage per bullet, you cant kill anything with it.
it needs to deal the same if not more dps than a small laser to be balanced.

mg requires ammo, spreads damage and you need to hold on the target for a long time to deal damage.

small laser doesnt require ammo, has heat that gets removed by the engine heat sinks, and focuses damage way better.


mechs that have lots of balistic hardpoints need a viable light balistic weapon, either buff for the mg or something pgi creates themself, canon wouldnt matter cause its required for balance.

[Team Leader]

Skyfaller, on 30 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Why should an MG match a small laser in damage when both have the exact same range and one costs more tonnage due to ammo? Please don't say heat since small laser generates negligible heat.

With that in mind, why should MG's even get an increase in damage? The bullets are nowhere near the caliber of an AC2 so why should it to damage matching or slightly higher than the AC2 per firing time (aka AC2 reload time)? Makes no sense.

I still say to simply add a very low chance of an MG bullet bypassing armor and hitting internals. That ALONE makes the MG or using a mass of MG's damn worth it. If you can use the thing to basically pop every internal component (that player can add in mechbay) or cause ammo explosions then the weapon is justified.

1)they should be about equal. MGs trade infinite ammo for the risk of an ammo explosion, the NEED for ammo (1.5 tons at least vs. the small lasers .5 tons) there needs to be a light ballistic weapon that can actually deal damage, many lights and a few mediums rely on it
2) nobody is asking for the same DPS as an AC2, or even anything close. That would be insane. AC2s are used as a comparison because in the TT, Machine guns did the exact same damage, just at a much shorter range. That's why it's not fair for MGs to be classified as niche weapons that completely suck
3) That's not a be good way to balance it. Bypassing armor is not what they're supposed to do. They're just supposed to do damage like everything else in the game. Plus if there was a way for people to just straight up bypass your armor, that would be pretty stupid and not balanced. Not saying you are stupid, but that concept isn't in line with anything else in the game and would leave too much room for exploit.

[Terror Teddy]

For those that say that MG's start doing too much damage and compare them with LRM's or Medium Lasers lets take some NUMBERS.

Small Laser
1/14 the weight of the ER PPC
Has 1/3 of the ER PPC's DPS

This would be like giving the MG 1/3 the DPS of the AC/20...which would be 1,6 DPS...Or in the case of the AC/2 - 1,33.

Right now the MG does 1/10 the DPS of the AC/2 or 1/13 of the AC/20 DPS.

If we were to convert that backwards from the ERPPC to the SL and give it the same treatment of 1/13 the DPS of its heaviest counterpart we would have a SL with a DPS of 0,25.

Dont you see how bloody wrong that is? There is more to this than the raw DPS because there are lots of weapons with better DPS than their larger counterparts.

And MG's have a few drawbacks.
-Ammo Explosion
-Cannot utilize heatsinks at all (yes, in a way that is a drawback unlike the SL that regenerate "ammo" faster...)
-Ammo Weight
-Useless without ammo
-Bullet spread

Edited by Terror Teddy, 30 March 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Pinselborste]

Terror Teddy, on 30 March 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

For those that say that MG's start doing too much damage and compare them with LRM's or Medium Lasers lets take some NUMBERS.

Small Laser
1/14 the weight of the ER PPC
Has 1/3 of the ER PPC's DPS

This would be like giving the MG 1/3 the DPS of the AC/20...which would be 1,6 DPS...Or in the case of the AC/2 - 1,33.

Right now the MG does 1/10 the DPS of the AC/2 or 1/13 of the AC/20 DPS.

If we were to convert that backwards from the ERPPC to the SL and give it the same treatment of 1/13 the DPS of its heaviest counterpart we would have a SL with a DPS of 0,25.

Dont you see how bloody wrong that is? There is more to this than the raw DPS because there are lots of weapons with better DPS than their larger counterparts.

And MG's have a few drawbacks.
-Ammo Explosion
-Cannot utilize heatsinks at all (yes, in a way that is a drawback unlike the SL that regenerate "ammo" faster...)
-Ammo Weight
-Useless without ammo

not to forget that it spreads the damage at more than 10 meters

[Lord Psycho]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns

I'd prefer .2 damage per shot and 2 DPS if and only if it has some kind of scatter to prevent people from trying to head shot with this.

[Pinselborste]

it already scatters stupidly at more than 10 meters.

Edited by Pinselborste, 30 March 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[Team Leader]

Lord Psycho, on 30 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns

I'd prefer .2 damage per shot and 2 DPS if and only if it has some kind of scatter to prevent people from trying to head shot with this.

To be honest, I think 2 DPS might even be a bit much. 1.5 is about right for the mechanics we have now, but 2 could totally work for Heavy Machine guns. And yeah they already do pretty much spread their damage way out if you're more than 30 meters away

[Pinselborste]

1.5 dps might be perfect, would make light ballistic mechs viable.

[Tezcatli]

I say reduce the weight of the MGs and ammo. Heck let us mount two MGs per ballistic hard point ;p

[Pinselborste]

damage increase is a way better solution.

[Team Leader]

Tezcatli, on 30 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I say reduce the weight of the MGs and ammo. Heck let us mount two MGs per ballistic hard point ;p

I think MG arrays should let us mount multiple MGs per hardpoint for .5 tons (3 for IS, 4 for clan if I recall) and I also agree letting us mount MG ammo in .5 ton increments would be another bonus.