229 replies to this topic

[Voivode]

Team Leader, on 21 April 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

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

The update on weapon balancing stated they are seeking a way to improve the MG, by increasing range, rate of fire, and a small boost to damage.

http://mwomercs.com/...45#entry1429445

scroll to the bottom of that page and see

[Ancalagon]

Roland, on 11 March 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

The MG should do the same damage as an AC/2, but with a max range of 90m.

/thread

Welcome to 6 MG Spider Online! Have a nice day while a mech that goes at 140kph + cores you out from behind in all of 2 seconds.

[Straften]

Voivode, on 24 April 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

The update on weapon balancing stated they are seeking a way to improve the MG, by increasing range, rate of fire, and a small boost to damage.

http://mwomercs.com/...45#entry1429445

scroll to the bottom of that page and see

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:06 PM

[SirLANsalot]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Weapons need to have a role in which they shine and are useful.

MG, anti Infantry.

Infantry, something we do not have yet, and PGI has adjusted the MG so it can slightly be used against mechs. However infantry are coming to the game, so till then we have an incomplete game but we have weapons for what it not here yet.

[3rdworld]

As much as they spread damage and how short their range is, 1-2 dps is fine. I mean that dreaded 6 mg spider will basically have to leg hump, that atlas to core it.

Straften, on 24 April 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:06 PM

If you would have scrolled to the bottom, as suggested, you would have seen the update was posted 2 days ago.

Edited by 3rdworld, 25 April 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Pinselborste, on 15 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

the mg really needs dps of 1, but also the ammo per ton has to be tweaked than to be at 150 damage like the other balistics.

One would also expect to have to tweak the RoF right? With 150 rounds per ton, you would get all of 1.5 seconds of fire time per ton. Can't see that being to popular. LOL

[MaddMaxx]

Sifright, on 16 March 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

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

But the AC2 also has near 11X the range of a MG. So errr is there a point in there some where?

They are 2 different weapons with one major difference, outside damage profiles, the MG has "zero" heat. 2-3 AC2's are frigging hot to run at max capacity. Any compromise to bring the MG in line with any other weapon will have to include heat/weight/way less ammo per ton.

So that then begs the question. Given that heavy changes would have to be made, what would be an acceptable MG configuration, if its damage was buffed to "acceptable" levels, whatever the hell that might be.

Sifright, on 16 March 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

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

But the AC2 also has near 11X the range of a MG. So errr is there a point in there some where?

They are 2 different weapons with one major difference, outside damage profiles, the MG has "zero" heat. 2-3 AC2's are frigging hot to run at max capacity. Any compromise to bring the MG in line with any other weapon will have to include heat/weight/way less ammo per ton.

So that then begs the question. Given that heavy changes would have to be made, what would be an acceptable MG configuration, if its damage was buffed to "acceptable" levels, whatever the hell that might be.

[MaddMaxx]

CPT Hazel Murphy, on 20 March 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

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?

That would be considered as a Rotary Cannon I believe and they are currently unavailable in the timeline.

[Joseph Mallan]

I voted no, but only because the damage should be equal to a small laser so 1 DpS. No more than that.

[MaddMaxx]

Deathlike, on 25 March 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

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.

That video of the Atlas would beg to differ. With 4 MG's it took less than 45 seconds to core that Atlas from the rear, we will just assume max. rear armor, and some folks would have that be reduced to 22.5 seconds or 11 seconds even?

That load out weighed in at what? 4 x .5t + 4t of ammo = 6t Take 3t of ammo and you basically have a AC2. Does the AC2 suck too?

[MaddMaxx]

Pinselborste, on 30 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

it already scatters stupidly at more than 10 meters.

It scatters to 1.5m out to long range. The Lbx10, on the other hand, scatters to 3.0. So basically 2 MG's at 1.0 would be near equivalent to an Lbx10 but have 50% less spread. Sounds all kinda wrong.

[Deathlike]

MaddMaxx, on 25 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

That video of the Atlas would beg to differ. With 4 MG's it took less than 45 seconds to core that Atlas from the rear, we will just assume max. rear armor, and some folks would have that be reduced to 22.5 seconds or 11 seconds even?

That load out weighed in at what? 4 x .5t + 4t of ammo = 6t Take 3t of ammo and you basically have a AC2. Does the AC2 suck too?

Have you seen the comparisons to the 6 SL Jenner (or 4 SL for a fairer comparison)? It does it better, if not faster. Plus, it doesn't have to be exposed to the same extent as the MG would to deal the same amount of damage.

[MaddMaxx]

Deathlike, on 25 April 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Have you seen the comparisons to the 6 SL Jenner (or 4 SL for a fairer comparison)? It does it better, if not faster. Plus, it doesn't have to be exposed to the same extent as the MG would to deal the same amount of damage.

To be truthful, I don't see many Jenner's at all these days. Apparently, they ain't what they once was I guess.

[Team Leader]

SirLANsalot, on 24 April 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

MG, anti Infantry.

Infantry, something we do not have yet, and PGI has adjusted the MG so it can slightly be used against mechs. However infantry are coming to the game, so till then we have an incomplete game but we have weapons for what it not here yet.

No. The devs have said the game will always be only mech on mech combat. They have NEVER confirmed combined arms or infantry in the game. They've only even said MAYBE to turrets. So you're wrong. Joseph Mallan, even at 1 DPS they would be near garbage. That's only .6 DPS more than now. With the need to keep the gun on target 100% of the time and never miss a shot (nearly impossible) you would have to be God like to get that measly 1 DPS. Most people will be getting maybe .3 if they buffed it to only that much.

[Deathlike]

Team Leader, on 25 April 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

No. The devs have said the game will always be only mech on mech combat. They have NEVER confirmed combined arms or infantry in the game. They've only even said MAYBE to turrets. So you're wrong. Joseph Mallan, even at 1 DPS they would be near garbage. That's only .6 DPS more than now. With the need to keep the gun on target 100% of the time and never miss a shot (nearly impossible) you would have to be God like to get that measly 1 DPS. Most people will be getting maybe .3 if they buffed it to only that much.

The only real shot of a MG-based mech to be effective is that they are distracted by something else far more threatening. However, most of the time, the MG is so painless, I have time to openly mock MG users (or tell my teammates that MGs are useless) and tell 5K users that I'm sorry they are using MGs.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 April 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[Zyllos]

I think having the damage of MG's increase by 0.06 (to 0.1) with a RoF of 10 would be fine.

Still leaves them weak against Armor while making their critical seeking pretty damn good.

Also, I think if the community decides to not want Critical Seeking as a way to balance weapons, that will give a reason to just completely remove a gameplay mechanic of Battletech. When a section of armor is opened, that is an open door to destroying a weapon or piece of equipment on that location.

There needs to be more emphasis on the critical system and less focus on just trying to get a section destroyed as quickly as possible.

[Kivin]

Please do not acknowledge or respond to posters who claim that Machine Guns are not suitable for Mech-to-Mech combat. This is a tired out argument that's been thoroughly trounced in too many threads to even begin to count, and frankly- they're wasting your time by making you type up a response.

Now on topic. Here's what other people have to say about the Machine Gun:

[1]Zilneas on False Choice:

... you give what appears to be an interesting choice that is then completely unrewarding, or ineffective at the promised action.

The Machine Gun looks cool on the screen. It sounds good in the speakers. It promises great things, and then totally lets you down.

[2] Sid Meier on choices in video games:

“Good decisions are situational. There’s a very key idea that when the decision is presented to the player, ideally it acts in an interesting way with the game situation,”

Most of the weapons in MWO fit squarely in to this. We use lasers for ammoless damage which can hit fast movers. We use ACs for low heat, high damage throughput attacks. Why would we want to use Machine Guns (in their current state)?

Some of these decisions are personal and tied to the player’s gaming style ... “This interesting decision would allow you to express your personal play style,”

My gaming style prefers high DPS, short ranged weaponry. I love the gaming style of small and medium pulse lasers, for example. Why shouldn't someone really enjoy Machine Guns?

When it comes to accommodating the player’s play style, “it’s very tempting as a designer to imagine that everybody plays a game the same way that you do, and it’s very tempting as a design and development group to feel that you represent all players,” he says. That’s why he finds it essential to good design to allow for as many choices and play styles as possible.

“It makes [the player] more connected to the game that they’re playing,” Meier says. “Think about ways of investing the player in your game by inviting them to make decisions that let them to express their personality or their gaming style.

No annotation is really necessary. Why would a developer want to limit choices, especially when they're already in the game?

[Team Leader]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Please do not acknowledge or respond to posters who claim that Machine Guns are not suitable for Mech-to-Mech combat. This is a tired out argument that's been thoroughly trounced in too many threads to even begin to count, and frankly- they're wasting your time by making you type up a response.

Now on topic. Here's what other people have to say about the Machine Gun:

[1]Zilneas on False Choice:

... you give what appears to be an interesting choice that is then completely unrewarding, or ineffective at the promised action.

The Machine Gun looks cool on the screen. It sounds good in the speakers. It promises great things, and then totally lets you down.

[2] Sid Meier on choices in video games:

“Good decisions are situational. There’s a very key idea that when the decision is presented to the player, ideally it acts in an interesting way with the game situation,”

Most of the weapons in MWO fit squarely in to this. We use lasers for ammoless damage which can hit fast movers. We use ACs for low heat, high damage throughput attacks. Why would we want to use Machine Guns (in their current state)?

Some of these decisions are personal and tied to the player’s gaming style ... “This interesting decision would allow you to express your personal play style,”

My gaming style prefers high DPS, short ranged weaponry. I love the gaming style of small and medium pulse lasers, for example. Why shouldn't someone really enjoy Machine Guns?

When it comes to accommodating the player’s play style, “it’s very tempting as a designer to imagine that everybody plays a game the same way that you do, and it’s very tempting as a design and development group to feel that you represent all players,” he says. That’s why he finds it essential to good design to allow for as many choices and play styles as possible.

“It makes [the player] more connected to the game that they’re playing,” Meier says. “Think about ways of investing the player in your game by inviting them to make decisions that let them to express their personality or their gaming style.

No annotation is really necessary. Why would a developer want to limit choices, especially when they're already in the game?

Holy cow yes

[Straften]

http://mwomercs.com/...18#entry2315318

[ExtremeA79]

My idea is to increase fire rate, increase damage against armor to .05 and to no armor .1 and to increase the crit chance.
This gives MG's a role and use.