550 replies to this topic

[Hou]

Esplodin, on 14 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Why not just make the weapon system VIABLE? There is no reason to nerf ammo. None. At. All.

Why in all that is good, pure, and bacon is this even a discussion?!?! It sucks now. It will suck with 40 dmg/ton. Why not just make it NOT SUCK?!?!?!??

My post was TL:DR, but I already reasoned out why MGs are always going to suck.

AUSwarrior24, on 14 March 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I gave up reading the posts, they're all same old, same old...

Just like to point out, again, that BattleTech (while being more realistic compared to some sci fis) is NOT real. Therefore, it shouldn't have the comparisons people are pointing out.

Keep the MGs how they are, you keep the lore guys happy. Buff 'em, no doubt you'll have them at your necks, and they'll immediately be considered unbalanced. THE MGs ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WEAK. Possibly useless. Don't like them, don't use them, and stop complaining.

Just thinking though... reading through some of the BT books, I haven't found any reference to MGs on 'Mechs. I know that's not the TT game, but still, obviously MGs are somewhat weak.

Here's the proof the "bone" thrown to MGs in the crit system is going to work for at least some people.

stjobe, on 14 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

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?

It's not. MGs suck terribly here. It's intentional. See previous points.

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I asked Brian Ekman in the NGNG podcast 64 if they plan on buffing MG's.

The answer was "Nope, we are happy with the balance right now"

Not that it won't change in the foreseeable future, it's just very disappointing that they see it as a balanced weapon.

Exactly. They are balanced as per the business model, not the gameplay model.

Edited by Hou, 14 March 2013 - 09:53 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

OneEyed Jack, on 14 March 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

I think 2 DPS might be a wee bit high. I agree that they need more damage and that the ballistic class needs something small to fill slots and give a short-range backup weapon. But double the DPS of a small laser for no heat might be a bit much. As for projectile speed, I believe MGs are hit scan weapons, though I admit I'm not sure.

Range...and has to be held.

[Heeden]

Mavairo, on 14 March 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

Do you really think 8 sustained DPS is particularly impressive?

A single AC2 deals exactly 1/2 of what your 4 bullet hoses would be doing. At a much lower rate of ammo consumption. -every single bullet- would have to hit the same facing over and over again to do the full 8.

2 AC2s equal the dps of your 4 MG spider. And you don't see people clamouring all over themselves to do 8 dps with AC2s now do you

If it became an issue they could always add heat. But I doubt very seriously that it would given the ludicrously short range of the MG.

I mean seriously you'd be doing the DPS of one UAC5 actually it's abit less. Are you so sure that's ''insane''?
Infact I have a great simulator option for you. Drop all your crap mgs right now, and put on a single UAC5. Only use it at ranges of 100 meters or less. Now remember, each time you double tap you're actually doing more than a full dps -more- than you would with buffed 2 DPS per gun MGs.

As fun as that experiment sounds my MGs only weight 2 tons, leaving me 7 tons short for the experiment. My dakkaphract has 2 AC-10s (24 tons) that should equal the DPS of 2 tons of 2 dps MG, or I could load up my CTF-1X with 5 MPLas (14 tons), hopefully I'll have enough heatsinks to sustain DPS. Or maybe someone could load up a Swayback with 8 SLas, that should be a similar mech if you imagine it going at 150kph with a smaller profile and 6 jump-jets.

In the end I took a 5 MPLas Jenner with 10+1 DHS and a single JJ (fun fact - the Training Grounds are bugged and give you full JJ benefits). It's a nice build if you don't mind shutting down every 3rd volley, after which your effective dps drops to around 2 as you wait for cooldown. I accidentally took it into a match, managed to cause some serious hurt on a few bigger mechs but only totaled 360ish for the whole match; partly because it was Alpine and I took a long route to come from behind, partly because of the heat and largely because of the two 3Ls who came from nowhere whilst I was otherwise engaged.

So, to answer your question, yes I do think 8 sustained DPS is that insane.

[Lawrence Elsa]

Quite frankly, I think machine guns should have a real buff. A small laser in BT only did 1 point of damage, but here it does 3 (in only 0.5 seconds). A machine gun did one point of damage, but here it does 0.04 points of damage ( about 0.16 per second)

really, I think the machine gun should do as much DPS as a small laser (taking in to account cool-down time), and thus needs a proper damage buff to do so, especially now that we have the Spider with 4 ballistic slots

[Terror Teddy]

Heeden, on 14 March 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

So, to answer your question, yes I do think 8 sustained DPS is that insane.

I can understand that 8dps SOUNDS like a lot, but lets simply compare.

MPL are far more powerful and has range but in your defense you pay 10 tonnes for the privilige.
You did 360 damage in one match with those - good.

6 tonnes gives me 80X4 sustained damage in 200 seconds - then im out. And that is always spread out over a mech. Say 50-60 accuracy. Average total damage per gun is 4 points - TOTAL

Sure, I dont suffer heat, but neither do i BENEFIT from the basic heatsinks I have. At least you canregenerate ammo and use DHS.

I need 4 MG's to get SLIGHTLY above a SL dps and deliver 80 damage in 50 seconds.

ONE SL do that in 80 and the engine HS takes care of the ammo.

I dont want MG's to be OP but 1/10 of the closest ballistic dps and 1/3 of a single small laser is not a viable number for a weapon that has the slowest delivery of damage per tonne AND the least damage of all weapons all across the board.

The numbers simply dont add up for it to be a balanced choice between similat light weapons like SRM2 / SL / MG's for mech weighting 30 tonnes and less.

Ita simply bad game design.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 14 March 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Heeden]

Lawrence Elsa, on 14 March 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Quite frankly, I think machine guns should have a real buff. A small laser in BT only did 1 point of damage, but here it does 3 (in only 0.5 seconds). A machine gun did one point of damage, but here it does 0.04 points of damage ( about 0.16 per second)

really, I think the machine gun should do as much DPS as a small laser (taking in to account cool-down time), and thus needs a proper damage buff to do so, especially now that we have the Spider with 4 ballistic slots

A few corrections, the small laser deals its damage over 0.75 seconds with a 2.25 second cooldown, giving it an effective DPS of 1. The machine gun fires 10 rounds a second, giving it a DPS of 0.4.

I could see a DPS of 1 making the machine gun a lot more viable but not too overpowered when boated. I'd be tempted to downgrade my 5K's ERLLas to a MPLas for extra ammo, but I wouldn't do away with a chest laser altogether. It would make it the hurtiest Spider by a decent margin, but the short range might keep it in line with the others.

[MustrumRidcully]

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I asked Brian Ekman in the NGNG podcast 64 if they plan on buffing MG's.

The answer was "Nope, we are happy with the balance right now"

Not that it won't change in the foreseeable future, it's just very disappointing that they see it as a balanced weapon.

I really wonder how the team (or person?) responsible for balance works. What kind of data or models do they use?

[Sifright]

El Bandito, on 14 March 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

There is no instance where having no cooldown is disadvantage. Imagine AC20 having no cooldown.

Remember those circle strafing ******* Ravens? Imagine a RVN-4X with beefed up MGs. Yeah, screw Ravens.

You are the bane of reasoned debate...

You have no understanding of what you talk about and yet you have surety in your faith based convictions.

MustrumRidcully, on 14 March 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

I really wonder how the team (or person?) responsible for balance works. What kind of data or models do they use?

I think they have a large dartboard on wall which might possibly include some complaints on the forum

Once a month they blind fold a team member and have him throw a dart in the boards general direction.

Often he misses completely and hits the wall so nothing gets balanced that month.

[Heeden]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

I can understand that 8dps SOUNDS like a lot, but lets simply compare.

MPL are far more powerful and has range but in your defense you pay 10 tonnes for the privilige.
You did 360 damage in one match with those - good.

6 tonnes gives me 80X4 sustained damage in 200 seconds - then im out. And that is always spread out over a mech. Say 50-60 accuracy. Average total damage per gun is 4 points - TOTAL

Sure, I dont suffer heat, but neither do i BENEFIT from the basic heatsinks I have. At least you canregenerate ammo and use DHS.

I need 4 MG's to get SLIGHTLY above a SL dps and deliver 80 damage in 50 seconds.

ONE SL do that in 80 and the engine HS takes care of the ammo.

I dont want MG's to be OP but 1/10 of the closest ballistic dps and 1/3 of a single small laser is not a viable number for a weapon that has the slowest delivery of damage per tonne AND the least damage of all weapons all across the board.

The numbers simply dont add up for it to be a balanced choice between similat light weapons like SRM2 / SL / MG's for mech weighting 30 tonnes and less.

I'm not arguing against machine guns being junk for damage dealing. The folks who've been praising the crit mechanic aren't doing so because they feel it is the optimal use for a light battle-mech, it's because we like a particular play-style (in my case jumping around and sniping with a Spider) and find that MGs add to that particular way of playing.

They add to harassment factor - 4MGs and a ton of ammo combined with the ERLLas make me nearly as effective at close range as a 2 MPLas -5V (which is also junk for damage dealing, Spider seriously suck) - and if the opportunity arises where a quick spray of machine gun fire can rob an Atlas of its AC-20, an LRM-boat of its LRMs or any other big mech of its big weapon I'll take it, and feel that the extra ton it cost me over an MPLas (that I couldn't fit anyway) was tonnage well spent.

Quote

Ita simply bad game design.

I agree that having such a large tonnage/damage hole in ballistics is poor design, but I don't think the machine gun is the weapon to fill that hole, at least not to such an extent. Maybe it's just my Elo bracket but if I could get the maneuverability of my Spiders with more fire-power than my Jenners (and no heat concerns) I would be mincing larger mechs.

[Sifright]

Heeden, on 14 March 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

I'm not arguing against machine guns being junk for damage dealing. The folks who've been praising the crit mechanic aren't doing so because they feel it is the optimal use for a light battle-mech, it's because we like a particular play-style (in my case jumping around and sniping with a Spider) and find that MGs add to that particular way of playing.

They add to harassment factor - 4MGs and a ton of ammo combined with the ERLLas make me nearly as effective at close range as a 2 MPLas -5V (which is also junk for damage dealing, Spider seriously suck) - and if the opportunity arises where a quick spray of machine gun fire can rob an Atlas of its AC-20, an LRM-boat of its LRMs or any other big mech of its big weapon I'll take it, and feel that the extra ton it cost me over an MPLas (that I couldn't fit anyway) was tonnage well spent.



I agree that having such a large tonnage/damage hole in ballistics is poor design, but I don't think the machine gun is the weapon to fill that hole, at least not to such an extent. Maybe it's just my Elo bracket but if I could get the maneuverability of my Spiders with more fire-power than my Jenners (and no heat concerns) I would be mincing larger mechs.

Jenners bring more firepower to a fight than even a 2DPS per mg spider would, whilst being able to front load all their damage in the first second of their salvo if the jenner were to hit all that on target on the spider on say the arm BAM instantly half of his damage dealing ability gone where as the spiders damage is all DOT meaning he has to hold reticle on constantly and still has a lower total dps

Jenner d 40 damage alpha 10.33DPS 2 srm4 4 ml

MGs have a vastly higher skill ceiling and floor then any other weapon whilst also being the worst weapon in the game in every way. This is bad game design regardless of how you cut it.

[The Basilisk]

MG's where implemented because they where canonical Battletech weapons.
Each class of weapon has and should have its up and down sides.
Ballistik Weapons are hillariously heavy but do little HPS at an averange damage output and averange ammo consumption.
( Gauss semi included )
In relation to their weight and Ammo dependency they are absolutely ok.

[Mahws]

Heeden, on 14 March 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

They add to harassment factor - 4MGs and a ton of ammo combined with the ERLLas make me nearly as effective at close range as a 2 MPLas -5V (which is also junk for damage dealing, Spider seriously suck) - and if the opportunity arises where a quick spray of machine gun fire can rob an Atlas of its AC-20, an LRM-boat of its LRMs or any other big mech of its big weapon I'll take it, and feel that the extra ton it cost me over an MPLas (that I couldn't fit anyway) was tonnage well spent.

Just take a step back and look at your argument here.

It basically boils down to "A 4 Machine gun + 1LL 5K is better than the worst mech in the game, and thus is okay".

Heeden, on 14 March 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

I agree that having such a large tonnage/damage hole in ballistics is poor design, but I don't think the machine gun is the weapon to fill that hole, at least not to such an extent. Maybe it's just my Elo bracket but if I could get the maneuverability of my Spiders with more fire-power than my Jenners (and no heat concerns) I would be mincing larger mechs.

Machine guns require you to be under 90 metres at all times, constantly exposed to your enemy without ever breaking away or darting behind cover and if you want to actually hit one component rather than ineffectually spraying your bullets all over your enemy, staying in one spot relative to them. That's a nice list of all the things you definitely never, ever want to do in a light mech. Your effective firepower would either be much lower than a ML using light mech, or you'd explode instantly as you slow down less than a hundred metres away from an enemy to try to bring your DPS to bear.

Edited by Mahws, 15 March 2013 - 12:37 AM.

[CMGrendel]

You can't have a game where there are only 2 of the 3 types of weapon that can be effectively mounted on light or medium mechs.

Regardless of any other factor, surely people aren't so staggeringly short-sighted that they think this is acceptable? An AC2 is not a practical weapon system on a sub-45tn mech and you certainly can't fill 2+ slots with it.

Also, since you never take an MG without at least half a ton of ammo to feed it, can people stop pretending that the MG is a "half ton" weapon system? MG's cost at least 1 ton per MG. In weight, that puts them into the same weight class as a medium laser, with the usual trade of limited, explosive ammo for infinite ammo and no heat gain (laser vs ballistic).

Personally, I don't care how it's fixed. That's the designer's job. It just needs to be fixed and the only purpose of arguing "no it's fine" is so that we can link to your post in the future when we want to discredit anything else you say on the grounds of breathtaking inability to comprehend logic.

[Commander Kobold]

I don't understand why soo many people are against making machine guns a valid weapon choice...I mean really, is a spider with 4 machine guns that each do 1-2 dps each really that scary?

[Esplodin]

El Bandito, on 14 March 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

There is no instance where having no cooldown is disadvantage. Imagine AC20 having no cooldown.

Remember those circle strafing ******* Ravens? Imagine a RVN-4X with beefed up MGs. Yeah, screw Ravens.

FupDup, on 14 March 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Beats being circled by a 3L.

And here is the crux of the issue IMHO. Hate for the 3L projecting on to all light chassis.

James Griffin, on 14 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

What I think you want is a mag shot gauss rifle. It weighs .5 tons, has a 3/6/9 range (same as the AC/20, medium laser and SRM), has 50 shots to the ton, and is likely a re-balance of the machine gun like the LB-10X is a re-balance of an AC/10.

I would be in favor of this, since it leaves MG for the crit seeking crowd, as well as making ballistic lights and the Cicada not too bad of a joke.

http://www.sarna.net...hot_Gauss_Rifle

.5 tons
2DPS (give it a 3 sec cooldown, similar to the discharge profile of a small laser)
75 rnds/ton (150 damage per ton like all other ballistics)
600m short/1250m max

I'd be all over that like a fat kid on cake, or me on Jessica Alba.

Omni 13, on 15 March 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

I don't understand why soo many people are against making machine guns a valid weapon choice...I mean really, is a spider with 4 machine guns that each do 1-2 dps each really that scary?

My Hunchback with 9 small lasers - OMFG OP in comparison, but apparently the best secret EVER since I never see any.

[General Taskeen]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 March 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

I really wonder how the team (or person?) responsible for balance works. What kind of data or models do they use?

Because they test things in the low league. All Devs are **** players, just like the rest of the low ELO bucket full of **** weapons.

[Kaox Veed]

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.

Because they only weigh a half ton! And go read sarna, tell me where it says they put machine guns on mechs to fight other mechs? It doesn't they all are equipped for anti-infantry. Get over the fact and move on! So tired of seeing this whiny BS.

[CMGrendel]

Kaox Veed, on 15 March 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Because they only weigh a half ton! And go read sarna, tell me where it says they put machine guns on mechs to fight other mechs? It doesn't they all are equipped for anti-infantry. Get over the fact and move on! So tired of seeing this whiny BS.

As for all these 'experts' quoting Sarna, could you please explain why about half the mechs designed by Solaris for the Arena have multiple machine gun mounts?

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

For the infantry that don't exist? Or for the crit benefits that don't exist in the rules at the time?

None of the "quit whining" ad hominem attacks. Just answer the facts.

[Cole Allard]

*caugh*

back in the old TT days, the MG were great if you had soldiers trying to climb your battlemech. It could happen, without MG your mech could pretty fast be taken by just having the pilot killed.


How this helps you in this game?

Well, you never know...someday they will implement the "exit mech and walk over the map" mode, Thats when you need MG's!

[Yokaiko]

Kaox Veed, on 15 March 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Because they only weigh a half ton! And go read sarna, tell me where it says they put machine guns on mechs to fight other mechs? It doesn't they all are equipped for anti-infantry. Get over the fact and move on! So tired of seeing this whiny BS.

Do you have any idea what a 1106 pound machine would actually do? For reference the 30mm tank buster on a Warthog weighs significantly less.