229 replies to this topic

[FrostCollar]

ArmageddonKnight, on 14 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

The problem being the next ballistic weapon above MG's is the Ac2 ..which is underused as is becouse its so damn heavy for such a low alpha strike damage , and the ROF is usless when it causes so much heat...atleast when ur packing more than 3.

if MG's were to be buffed, they would have to still be much much worse than AC2's or AC2's would have to be buffed in terms of weight and/or HPS.

Reduce AC2 heat too then. Bam, we've made the game better, and in a simple to implement way too! No need to add radically different armor mechanics.

Anyways, remember that range is a balancing factor along with damage. Of course the AC2 will be heavier than the MG compared to the damage it does because you get massively increased range as a benefit. This is the same system that makes the ML and LL quite well balanced even though the latter is five times as heavy as the former while only being a bit over twice as powerful.

[MustrumRidcully]

Are we there yet?

[Team Leader]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 April 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Are we there yet?

Not quite my friend. Close though! Maybe if we could kindly ask lowtax with their massive group base to vote for the MG damage increase.

[RenegadeMaster]

While the OP makes a convincing argument for increasing MG damage and I agree with reducing the ammo per ton, I believe that giving the machine gun a DPS higher than the small laser is not a balanced approach.
I think MG damage of 0.07 (DPS=0.70) would be merited, given that the MG requires ammo.

[Kmieciu]

I tested 1.6 DPS machineguns (0.08 damage ROF: 20) and still 4 of them kill a trial Commando slower than 4 small lasers.

Fun fact: ROF 20 translates only to about 15 rounds a second on testing grounds.

Against a moving target they would be even less useful.

Remember - to kill the stock Commando with 4 small lasers the you need to spend 0.75 x 3 = 2,25 seconds aiming at his center torso. With four machineguns "1.6 DPS" each, it took about 17 seconds of aiming at his center torso.

[SirLANsalot]

every last one of these MG "ideas" all stem from one thing. People remember the MW4 MG's but are forgetting one MAJOR thing about the MW4 ones.....they were called MG ARRAYS. Thats right, ARRAYS meaning they had multiple guns in them for the .5 ton. The IS one had 3 MG's and the clan 4, thats why they were so "good" back then, not to mention a 200m range too (OMG!).

These MGs we have are single guns, if we had the arrays they would be fine but we don't. Till then, nothing will change with MG's until such a time as they are made into those 3 for 1 arrays.

[Belrick]

MGs are still **** and need a buff.

Or to put it another way. Light mechs that need to rely on MGs to use their ballistic hardpoints are worse than their energy or missile counterparts for no reason other than they have to use MGs.

Edited by Belrick, 18 April 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

SirLANsalot, on 18 April 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

every last one of these MG "ideas" all stem from one thing. People remember the MW4 MG's but are forgetting one MAJOR thing about the MW4 ones.....they were called MG ARRAYS. Thats right, ARRAYS meaning they had multiple guns in them for the .5 ton. The IS one had 3 MG's and the clan 4, thats why they were so "good" back then, not to mention a 200m range too (OMG!).

These MGs we have are single guns, if we had the arrays they would be fine but we don't. Till then, nothing will change with MG's until such a time as they are made into those 3 for 1 arrays.

You are horribly mistaken if you believe that is the "one thing" the idea on useful Machine Guns comes from.

I have no idea how MGs or MG Arrays performed in MW4, nor do I care.

I care about all weapons being useful in MW:O. The Machine Gun isn't useful, so I want a change to make it useful. No previous Mechwarrior Title, not the Battletech game, not the Solaris Rules, nothing like that drives these threads. What drives these threads primarly is the inferior performance of the Machine Gun and the desire for it to become a viable weapon. Everything else is most likely just an argumentation help.

[Straften]

Team Leader, on 07 March 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

That is all. Remove crit buff, don't remove it, reduce ammo per ton, don't reduce ammo per ton, I don't care. I just want the machine gun to do damage.

Update March 25, 2013
At this point in time, I believe the best option would be the following:
-Reduce ammo per ton to 1000 rounds, from 2000
-Buff each bullet's damage to 0.15, up from 0.04
-Leave the fire rate, heat, everything else the same

The above would give the MG a DPS of 1.5, a good amount, while also giving it the damage potential per ton of 150, exactly in line with the other ACs. It would also only take 100 seconds to dump 1 ton of ammo, a great improvement over 200 seconds for only 80 points of damage. Leaving the crit buff in wouldn't make much of a difference wither way, as the increased damage from MGs would actually be able to destroy components and internals at a satisfactory rate. Thanks for following my thread everyone!

And then you will have 6 machine gun DD running around with a sustainable damage output of 9. No. That is ridiculous. In a sustained trade, that is 50% more damage than 5 large lasers. Do you really want them to be that powerful?

Why don't you reconsider your idea, and place it at 0.08. This would get a yes vote from me, as it would double the damage already. Your number though, are clearly asking for Machineguns: Online. No thanks.

*Edit*

Buff them now.

Edited by Straften, 24 April 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 April 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

You are horribly mistaken if you believe that is the "one thing" the idea on useful Machine Guns comes from.

I have no idea how MGs or MG Arrays performed in MW4, nor do I care.

I care about all weapons being useful in MW:O. The Machine Gun isn't useful, so I want a change to make it useful. No previous Mechwarrior Title, not the Battletech game, not the Solaris Rules, nothing like that drives these threads. What drives these threads primarly is the inferior performance of the Machine Gun and the desire for it to become a viable weapon. Everything else is most likely just an argumentation help.

then you do have the misguided idea that every gun must be viable and useful. For some guns to shine and "be good" others must be "bad" then. Example is the Small Laser and Small Pulse Laser, nither are good guns and one is the same tonnage as a medium laser. You don't see people asking for smalls to be made "viable", even though they are peices of crap BECASUE of its brother the medium. Same thing happening here, only in ballistics world everything is heavier due to the lack of heat generation.



Also as to address the MG "issue". No matter how strong you make MG's they will suffer from the same thing every other ballistics suffers from. Targeting. You must keep your weapon on target the entier time to keep damage going. Look at the AC2, the true anti mech MG, you must keep its 2 damaging shot on target the whole time to even make an enemy mech blink.

[ICEFANG13]

Straften, on 18 April 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

And then you will have 6 machine gun DD running around with a sustainable damage output of 9. No. That is ridiculous. In a sustained trade, that is 50% more damage than 5 large lasers. Do you really want them to be that powerful?

Why don't you reconsider your idea, and place it at 0.08. This would get a yes vote from me, as it would double the damage already. Your number though, are clearly asking for Machineguns: Online. No thanks.

I made that mech for you!
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0774372279af5ff

Of course it moves a bit slower, but has more range, by a lot, give it a go and let me know how game breaking it is ok?

SirLANsalot, on 18 April 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

then you do have the misguided idea that every gun must be viable and useful. For some guns to shine and "be good" others must be "bad" then. Example is the Small Laser and Small Pulse Laser, nither are good guns and one is the same tonnage as a medium laser. You don't see people asking for smalls to be made "viable", even though they are peices of crap BECASUE of its brother the medium. Same thing happening here, only in ballistics world everything is heavier due to the lack of heat generation.



Also as to address the MG "issue". No matter how strong you make MG's they will suffer from the same thing every other ballistics suffers from. Targeting. You must keep your weapon on target the entier time to keep damage going. Look at the AC2, the true anti mech MG, you must keep its 2 damaging shot on target the whole time to even make an enemy mech blink.

Small Lasers are amazing weapons, Small Pulse Lasers are terrible.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 18 April 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

SirLANsalot, on 18 April 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

then you do have the misguided idea that every gun must be viable and useful. For some guns to shine and "be good" others must be "bad" then.

No. Weapons need to have a role in which they shine and are useful. Small Lasers suck against PPCs. One weapon does 10 damage at 540m, the other 3 at 90m. But wait, the SMall Laser is acutally much smaller and produces less heat. So the SMall Laser can actually shine if you're not on a mech that could afford to carry PPCs.

If we'd apply your theory to other things, it would mean we need Uwe Boll movies so we can enjoy Christopher Nolan movies. That's bovine excrement.

[Team Leader]

Heck, 1 DPS is barely enough. The way machine guns work mean you only get about 60% of your shots on target. Even with 2 DPS we wouldn't have murderbots gunning people down left and right, but at least they would be able to defend themselves against other lights.

[Troutmonkey]

I made a Jagermech with 4x Machine Guns and 4x Flamers. I snuck up behind someone and hit them with everything for about 20 seconds before I died.

I was within 64m, I did 50dmg.

I think it's going to take A LOT of buffs before anyone screams that they are OP, epsecially when I have the option to go double AC20 and just one hit anything...

[Skyfaller]

I'll say it again: All weapons in MWO received a 3x ROF but not the MGs. MG's now should be having either 3x the damage or 3x the ROF (I would go for ROF but that may be a problem with hit detection and server keeping track of each bullet..so the x3 dmg is better).

Flamers just need to be given an 'armor softening' effect depending on heat applied. Think about it... if now the game does display different colors for armor sections that get hit (flaming a mech makes it glow cherry red haha) then they should use the same mechanic to apply an armor debuff... the hotter the armor is the less protection it has. Aka, at cherry-red hot (max heat) the section's armor would have up to 50% less protection. Think of it like a reverse ferro armor effect.

[Loler skates]

Zyllos, on 08 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

You do know that Machine Guns deal WAY more than they do on TT in this game?

2 damage / 10s per turn = 0.2 DPS
MWO Machine Gun = 0.04 damage * 10 RoF = 0.4 DPS

They basically deal 2x the amount of damage than TT. The issue is that right now, machine guns spread that damage all over the mech because they act like lasers (ray traces). So unless you can keep that machine gun on a single location, they will not deal a whole lot.

And this is partly because weapon convergence is MUCH too accurate in this game. Why wield a machine gun when you can wield 2 small lasers that hit the exact same location, dealing much more DPS? But that is a different issue for another thread.

The issue is that every other weapon was buffed far more than the MG.

Even the damage per tonne of mg ammo as hugely nerfed compared to tTT.

[Team Leader]

Somebody, anybody, would a DEV please see what us players want? Read the poll results!

[Straften]

Straften, on 18 April 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

And then you will have 6 machine gun DD running around with a sustainable damage output of 9. No. That is ridiculous. In a sustained trade, that is 50% more damage than 5 large lasers. Do you really want them to be that powerful?

Why don't you reconsider your idea, and place it at 0.08. This would get a yes vote from me, as it would double the damage already. Your number though, are clearly asking for Machineguns: Online. No thanks.

*Edit*

Buff them now.

This

[Voivode]

Zyllos, on 08 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

You do know that Machine Guns deal WAY more than they do on TT in this game?

2 damage / 10s per turn = 0.2 DPS
MWO Machine Gun = 0.04 damage * 10 RoF = 0.4 DPS

They basically deal 2x the amount of damage than TT. The issue is that right now, machine guns spread that damage all over the mech because they act like lasers (ray traces). So unless you can keep that machine gun on a single location, they will not deal a whole lot.

And this is partly because weapon convergence is MUCH too accurate in this game. Why wield a machine gun when you can wield 2 small lasers that hit the exact same location, dealing much more DPS? But that is a different issue for another thread.

Yes, but every other weapon got much larger boosts to damage than the MG. At least boost the MG the way they boosted everything else

[Vermaxx]

Rip out the auto fire crap, it doesn't work. Change both MG and flamers. Make them fire on the same total cycle time (duration + cooldown) as small laser, and then set their damage to book. Hell, make them fire twice if you want, with half book damage each shot.

A MG that can apply one damage in half a second, or .25 second fire duration, for a total of two damage in the time a small laser applies three, will never be overpowered. It will never break the game like you fear form other MW titles.

What it WILL DO is stop sucking, and tanking mechs with a large number of ballistic slots, since we won't be forced to gut the mech for several AC2s just to avoid wasting the hardpoints.

Edited by Vermaxx, 24 April 2013 - 06:45 PM.