LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:21 PM
Heeden, on 14 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:
The AC/2 was massively overbuffed from TT values compared to the other ballistics, if you use that as the standard the AC/20 should have 40dps.
And yet nobody complains that the AC/2 is overpowered. At least I haven't seen any such complaints.
So why is a buff to the MG such a terror to people?
The AC2 was buffed, as has been pointed out. Why is it anathema to some people to have the MG buffed as well?
Like StJobe said, we are not asking for the MG to do 4dps like the AC2, we just want the MG to fulfill it's role, that of short range ballistic option. The same way the small laser fills that role for energy weapons.
The AC2 was buffed, as has been pointed out. Why is it anathema to some people to have the MG buffed as well?
Like StJobe said, we are not asking for the MG to do 4dps like the AC2, we just want the MG to fulfill it's role, that of short range ballistic option. The same way the small laser fills that role for energy weapons.
I'd make the argument the MG needs to be at least some what competitive compared to the medium laser given that the ML is an option all light mechs that aren't the god damned flea make extensive use of and that there is no ballistic option outside of the MG until you hit the AC/2 at Six tonnes a hard point which is very unrealistic option for a light.
Rounds in TT are 10sec. A TT MG does 2damage in 10sec. That is 0.2 damage per second.
Also ammo in TT is 1 t per 200 shots. Go ahead make a 0.2 dps MG with 200 shots per t of ammo. Even the ones we have now are better.
Also: "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers." At no time were they considered anti Mech weapons. But we do not have infantery ingame.
The AC/2 is firing High-Explosive Armor-Piercing ammunition, while MGs fire simple, maybe full metal jacket slugs.
The MG is 0.5 t, the AC/2 6 t.
MG ammo per t 1000 (200 in TT), AC/2 ammo per t 75 (45 in TT)
That is like comapring a knive with a sledge hammer. Both nice and good for what they are supposed to be used, but not in the same department.
PS. Yes MGs need a buff. But their high rate of fire makes buffs tricky.
There's nothing tricky about it. If they simply doubled the damage and halfed the ammo box, the issue would be resolved in a shockingly simple amount of game. In previous games you shot for a lot more per bullet, but just didn't get 2,000 per ton of ammo. I'd much rather do 2x with 1k bullets as opposed to what they are now. It takes far too long to dump out that ammo box and doesn't do enough to be worth its short range and channel time to do so.
I'd make the argument the MG needs to be at least some what competitive compared to the medium laser given that the ML is an option all light mechs that aren't the god damned flea make extensive use of and that there is no ballistic option outside of the MG until you hit the AC/2 at Six tonnes a hard point which is very unrealistic option for a light.
I would not be opposed to your suggestion, but I think asking for that sort of buff might be setting our goals a little too high.
Also: "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers." At no time were they considered anti Mech weapons. But we do not have infantry ingame.
Quintessential means "the perfect or best example of." It does not mean "exclusively."
Translation: "The Machine gun is the perfect anti-infantry weapon..." Nowhere in that sentence or even that whole Sarna page does it say "weak against mechs." The page only says that it's really really good against infantry. The conclusion that being good against infantry makes something automatically bad against mechs is invalid because it has no premises which it is founded upon.
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:53 PM
1. MG against 'mechs: 2 damage - exactly as much as an AC/2
2. MG against infantry platoons: 2d6 men killed.
That's where it all comes from, an additional bonus to damage against infantry that was added in a later revision of the game when infantry was introduced.
People see point 2 and instantly forget that point 1 is still valid.
It's like not only MG buffs are anathema to some people, but reading the thread also.
The AC/2 and the MG did the EXACT SAME DAMAGE to 'mechs in TT. How can this be so hard to understand?
Like I said the AC/2 received a huge buff compared to the other weapons, presumably because the high tonnage would not have been justified in MW:O without decent dps. MGs have a very low tonnage, in fact by weight they deliver the best damage out of all the ballistics (so whilst 6 ton of AC/2 delivers 4dps, the same weight of MGs delivers 4.8dps).
That's why I feel rather than a straight buff to MGs we need something to fill the gap between MGs and the AC/2. Some peeps have suggested an AC/1 but personally I would prefer something like a machine gun array. The low damage-per-ton of the ammo is something that has to be weighed against the heat-free nature of MGs. I suspect it would be a good idea to increase the number of bullets so they are roughly equal to the ACs but ultimately that would have to be decided by play-testing.
You know what's weighed against the heat free nature of machine guns?
Ammo dependance.
Greater slot usage.
Greater weight.
Risk of ammo explosion.
Constant fire reducing effective DPS.
Short range (effective range even shorter than SL due to hitscan).
Not hitscan.
If machine guns did the exact same DPS as a small laser, they'd still be inferior. Not generating heat doesn't make them instantly good, they have a tonne of other drawbacks that balance that already, stomping their damage into the floor is completely unnecessary.
Personally, I think we should start high and adjust downwards if it turns out to be OP, instead of starting low and adjusting upwards. Why? Because of the continuous-fire mechanic of the MG which means any time off-target, even a tenth of a second, decreases the effective DPS.
Plus there'd be something to balance out the streaky lights. Imagine a host of Raven 4x's chasing COM 2D's around the field.
They cant get a buff because some guy decided to spend several months wastin his time on the crit system they implemented. Now that its in and PGI made a huge deal out of it, they can't simply buff it because it announces to everyone that they wasted several months makin this pointless crit system.
They cant get a buff because some guy decided to spend several months wastin his time on the crit system they implemented. Now that its in and PGI made a huge deal out of it, they can't simply buff it because it announces to everyone that they wasted several months makin this pointless crit system.
I'm good with that. Just make it crit EVERYTHING if they have to save face - armor, structure, internals, components, infantry . Problem solved!
I think the Machinegun is fine where its at! I just ran one last match and had three kills with it! -Okay so I was using 3 SRM6s as secondary weapons but the MG was my main weapon!-
LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.
Posted 14 March 2013 - 06:25 PM
hashinshin, on 14 March 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:
Ohgodwhyohgodwhy? Why has it been over a year and still to this day I can't load a mech up with 4 MGs and go to town on anything within 200m of me? Why are mechs with more than 1 ballistic slot handicapped from MGs being so worthless? Why is there only a single 3x ballistic slot mech that is competitive? Why god why can't you just increase the projectile speed of MGs, and triple their DPS? Why is PGI so opposed to letting people use MGs? They were intended to be used on battlemechs to kill other battlemechs. We aren't asking for anything more than that. 2 DPS per MG is all we want. Consider: Q. WHAT, MGS AREN'T MEANT TO KILL MECHS WTF! A. MGs were in BT before infantry were. As has been stated many times armor in the BT universe chips away rather than trying to deflect shots. There's no way to deflect a 160mm AC20 round so rather the armor was designed to tear away at the point of impact to save the rest of the mech. High grade high caliber MGs can also tear away at mech armor. Q. But giving them 2 DPS would make them so OP! A. The average HIT RATE for a MG is fairly low, 50% on average. ADDITIONALLY, due to their crit space requirements (2 medium lasers is 2 crit spaces, 2 MGs is 3+ crit spaces depending on how much ammo you want) and their tendency to blow up (ammo exploded) they actually have big liabilities. ADDITIONALLY the 100% uptime on aim requirement (you can never look away) drastically reduces your survivability while at the same time giving tons of counterplay in that any movement of their torso forces your damage off taret. Q. I still think 2 DPS would be OP! A. In fact, they should probably be at 3 DPS to be balanced. Machine guns are: A. Slow projectile traveling, B. Ammo reliant, C. Require 100% uptime, D. Crit space intensive for a low quality weapon, and lastly E. Have very few mechs that can utilize more than 2 MGs and most of them on the torso which makes it hard to use. Oh also F. The ammo can kaboom. Q. But that's so unrealistic for a machine gun to hurt a mech! A. As I have explained above, read that. Additionally, machine guns in BT (mech mounted ones) are not firing tiny little bullets. They're firing these: As a machine gun. These are MASSIVE mech mounted DOOM cannons. The machine guns found on mechs are ANTI MECH weaponry that just *happens* to be useful against infantry. It is not the other way around. They are NOT anti-infantry weapons that can also hurt mechs. Q. I still am not convinced because I am hard headed! A. A car weights about 2 tons. The MG in game weights 0.5 tons. This MG is 1/4 the weight of a freaking car. I don't understand whats not to get here. This is not a 50 pound rifle, this is a 1000 pound anti mech machine gun. Q. Why not just make it do bonus damage to internals so it kills faster! A. Because people want to use the machine gun as a weapon, a real weapon. And it's supposed to be. There are 3 variants out there that are DESIGNED to boat MGs and use them as their main weapons. MGs are supposed to be the light ballistics weapon you take on those ballistics slots. You know the Dragon with 3 ballistics in its arm? What sense to those make? They don't unless MGs do good damage. Q. THIS WOULD BREAK DA GAME! A. So let us try it. See if that's true. If it's really true then fine, nerf it again and we'll drop it.
Is this the same Hashinshin that plays LoL under the same name? (and likes to make the same LOOONG threads?)
Anyway, I agree with Machinegun damage vs armor buff but heavily disagree with making it atleast 2 damage. Machinegun has almost no cooldown and absolutely 0 heat to use. It will make leg huggers much more annoying and deadly.
Not to mention it will turn many people into mindless in-your-face type of pilots -- Look at A1.
6
This topic is locked
stjobe, on 14 March 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:
. Problem solved!
