229 replies to this topic

[CrazyPenguin]

Kogru, on 15 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Instead of making MGs do more dps, maybe give them a role in the game? like putting in structures, vehicles, infantry around cap points that you would kill with a machine gun easilly.

No. Mech scale machineguns are designed to damage mechs, not infantry. They are good at defeating infantry, but so is a pulse laser. Machine guns had rules in the tabletop before infantry did. MGs being anti-personnel only is something I've only seen in discussions around MWO, and I've been more-or-less active in the Battletech community for a decade and a half. They need to be brought in line damage-wise with the rest of the weapons, not abandoned to a false purpose MWO will never support.

[Bobzilla]

The problem is, if they are brought in line damage-wise, they would have to bring them in line weight/slots/heat wise as well. Then people would just argue thats its too heavy/hot/big. Maybe make an AC/1.

[lorrylemming]

I think the issue here is a combination of MGs being poop and AC/2 being very heavy and quite hot. There needs to be a weapon to fill the gap, be it a HMG or maybe an AC/1 or is there something else that would fit from canon?

[Sifright]

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.

Where as the AC/2 does 40x times the damage so errr is there a point in there some where?

Every weapon deals VASTLY more than 5x as much damage compared to TT in MWO. Except for the MG which is stuck is sucksville

[Team Leader]

CrazyPenguin, on 15 March 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

No. Mech scale machineguns are designed to damage mechs, not infantry. They are good at defeating infantry, but so is a pulse laser. Machine guns had rules in the tabletop before infantry did. MGs being anti-personnel only is something I've only seen in discussions around MWO, and I've been more-or-less active in the Battletech community for a decade and a half. They need to be brought in line damage-wise with the rest of the weapons, not abandoned to a false purpose MWO will never support.

Thank you CrazyPenguin, your experience shows. Some people just don't get it. I've never played a TT game, painted a miniature, or bought a sourcebook in my life, but Machine Guns (and flamers) in their current state are horrible for game balance and killing weapon diversity.

[Terror Teddy]

To me it's simple.

Make them do between 125-150 damage per tonne.

200 seconds is to slow to reach that but depending on what we take:

150/Tonne
200S: 0,75 DPS
100S: 1,50 DPS
80S : 1,875 DPS
50S: 3,00 DPS

The sweet spot is around 80 seconds as 50 is too fast to spray away all that ammo but 80 seconds is still 40% slower than any other ballistic.

[Team Leader]

Terror Teddy, on 16 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

To me it's simple.

Make them do between 125-150 damage per tonne.

200 seconds is to slow to reach that but depending on what we take:

150/Tonne
200S: 0,75 DPS
100S: 1,50 DPS
80S : 1,875 DPS
50S: 3,00 DPS

The sweet spot is around 80 seconds as 50 is too fast to spray away all that ammo but 80 seconds is still 40% slower than any other ballistic.

I would rather them just cut the ammo count in 1/4, so 500 rounds per ton, same fire rate, but each damage does .16 damage instead of .04. That would give them 1.6 DPS, a pretty good number to start with.

I have changed the thread title to agree with my new developing opinion on MGs.

[Pinselborste]

cutting ammo would mean that its still at lower damage per ton than other ballistics. it should be changed so that its 150. with 1.X dps it would be balanced since it spreads the damage unless you are at 30 meter range.

[CrazyPenguin]

lorrylemming, on 16 March 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think the issue here is a combination of MGs being poop and AC/2 being very heavy and quite hot. There needs to be a weapon to fill the gap, be it a HMG or maybe an AC/1 or is there something else that would fit from canon?

According to canon, right now we're stuck with Gauss Rifles, AC/2/5/10/20s, UAC/5, LB-X/10, and MGs. Eventually we'll have Light MGs and Heavy MGs, the first of which has a longer range for less damage and the latter less range for more damage. Light AC/s will come after a while, less range for less weight (LAC/5s weight 5 tons, 3068). Shortly after that we'll get AP Gauss Rifles, which deal 3 damage for 1 heat, have a range up to 9, and weight .5 tons each. But that's 3069 Clan Tech.

So, for the time being, we're stuck with the 5.5 ton gap between a machine gun and an AC/2. Unless the MWO devs want to include Rifles, which at this time in canon are used solely by Periphery states which can't afford proper weaponry.

[Heeden]

I abstained because I'm not sure if the MG needs a boost in damage, or if we need a heavier ballistic weapon to fill the gap between MGs and AC/2s. Personally I want double (or quad!) MG-Arrays because more dakka.

[FrostCollar]

Heeden, on 16 March 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

I abstained because I'm not sure if the MG needs a boost in damage, or if we need a heavier ballistic weapon to fill the gap between MGs and AC/2s. Personally I want double (or quad!) MG-Arrays because more dakka.

I understand where you're coming from, but the MG has to be good for something in the game. If they want to add things like MG arrays later, that's fine, but let's make the MGs worthwhile alone first.

[Team Leader]

Pinselborste, on 16 March 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

cutting ammo would mean that its still at lower damage per ton than other ballistics. it should be changed so that its 150. with 1.X dps it would be balanced since it spreads the damage unless you are at 30 meter range.

Oh, good point. How about cutting ammo in half, but upping the damage to each bullet to .16? That's 160 DMG per ton, taking 100 seconds to dump it all too.

[HammerSwarm]

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 I tried this sort of thread a while back. It's obvious that something needs to be added to close the gap between 0-6 tons.

The truth of the matter is that in table top and other games there have been other goals than mech destruction. If we had tanks to shoot, villagers to torch, or civilians to put down there would be a reason to use these smaller weapons that fire more frequently. As it sits now there is no reason to have a machine gun because you can't even really shoot another light mech with them,

If someone with the capability to record their game feed could go into the training grounds with the useless machine gun spider and shoot the light mechs in training grounds with 4 machine guns and record how long it takes with focused fire to kill them. I suspect it will be ridiculous.

[Team Leader]

HammerSwarm, on 17 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

If someone with the capability to record their game feed could go into the training grounds with the useless machine gun spider and shoot the light mechs in training grounds with 4 machine guns and record how long it takes with focused fire to kill them. I suspect it will be ridiculous.

Ah, that has been done in the past in fact. Even on the under armored mechs in training grounds, it took forever. It's not fair at all!

[MustrumRidcully]

MaddMaxx, on 11 March 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

So you would add Heat to the MG then?

Otherwise, if it was EXACTLY like a SL, and you had a choice, why take the Heat additive based weapon, ever?

SL = damage="3" heatdamage="0" impulse="0.0" heat="2.0" cooldown="2.25" ammoType="" ammoPerShot="0" minRange="0" longRange="90" maxRange="180"

MG = damage="0.04" heatdamage="0" impulse="0.001" heat="0.0" cooldown="0.0" ammoType="MachineGunAmmo" ammoPerShot="1" minRange="0" longRange="90.0" maxRange="200.0"

Because thanks to your double heat sink ugprade, you just got free heat dissipation normally worth 20 tons of standard heat sinks? And even without that heat sink, you still got 10 tons worth of heat dissipation installed in your mech no matter what.

A Spider doesn't need to worry much about the heat of its weapons. Even with 10 single heat sinks.


Heat however may be a concern for mechs that actually carry already a heavy heat load. For those, adding a heat neutral weapon can be interesting. That's why I am personally cautious in increasing the MG's damage too much. I think 0.8 to 1.2 DPS would be fine, but if you go low as 0.8 or 1.2, you might want to give the MG another useful benefit - like, say, doubling or quadrupling its range. To make a low heat ballistic weapon not too good, you can also always tweak the ammo/ton.
Heck, 0.8 DPS could be fine for the MG if it had the same cooldown and burst duration as the small laser.

[Keyonastring]

I love a machine gun. You get in close and all the impacts make the mech you are hitting go almost blind, but you do nothing to them. So unless you are going as strictly support with them you can not actually do anything.

[focuspark]

TLDR (voted yes)

Would prefer to see the MG do 1.0 DPS vs armor and 4.0 DPS vs internals. No crit bonus.

Same for flamer.

[Verbrand]

I believe that MGs DO need a damage increase, but due to them generating no heat, it only needs to be a small increase.

I am thinking from the current 0.4 DPS to 0.6 DPS may be sufficient.

Keep everything else about them the same, especially the way they look/feel when firing as that is awesome.

[CPT Hazel Murphy]

The "Machine Guns don't do anything VS Armor" point is moot right here:


https://www.youtube....qu8hmPHd0#t=44s

I there some law that states Mechwarrior MG's can't work like this?

[Esplodin]

HammerSwarm, on 17 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

If someone with the capability to record their game feed could go into the training grounds with the useless machine gun spider and shoot the light mechs in training grounds with 4 machine guns and record how long it takes with focused fire to kill them. I suspect it will be ridiculous.

Here ya go:



and:



Relent data:



edit: https and youtube apparently don't mix?

Edited by Esplodin, 20 March 2013 - 11:44 AM.