550 replies to this topic

[Xando Parapasu]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yea, they did a pretty good job with the AC/2 i've used it to pretty great effect on the 4X but it requires very careful placing of the mech in question because you are slow as molasseses in that particular phract.

They did indeed, maybe to effective, but that is a different discussion.

[Sifright]

moneyBURNER, on 17 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Sigh, I was responding to a suggestion of removing continuous fire.

Continuous fire is a downside in some situations, but beneficial in others, where you can continue applying damage for the full length of time an opportunity presents itself, as when a mech is shut down.

Continuous fire with no heat is hugely advantageous in certain battle situations where enemies have reached their heat threshold and can't retreat to cool down properly.

2 DPS MGs would be a terror on lights/mediums sneaking up on distracted enemies. Imagine a 4MG light being able to fire on the rear armor of a heavy/assault with the DPS of 8 small lasers and no possibility of overheating, and being able to immediately engage any other target.

8 DPS continuously with no heat is kind of ridiculous. 4.8 DPS continuously is reasonable.

light mechs don't use small laser because they are trash.

Light mechs use medium lasers, SRM4 and nothing in the ballistics department because there isn't any worth taking given their mass or characteristics. I'd like this not to be the case.

8 dps is not very much at all and in your scenario the mech as little to no burst damage meaning they have to sit still to achieve it all.

Every light mech that isn't your particular MG variant features burst damage in the low to high ten+ DPS. allowing

With the burst in the first second being 30-40 damage.

2 DPS mgs would absolutely not be over powered.

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

They did indeed, maybe to effective, but that is a different discussion.

well in any mech larger than the phract AC/2 never gets used infact AC/2s don't really see use in general in MWO outside of the 4X phract so i'm not sure i would agree with you.

It's a decent weapon but it still costs to much weight for what it does.

[Critical Fumble]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Which is why I don't include ammo in my matching. You don't want to match the MG to an AC2 which is why I keep saying it must be balanced with the small arms. I haven't visited the suggestion boards so I didn't know.

0.5 ton weapons should be balanced to each other and nothing more. Anything else is just being a Munchkin!

Why shouldn't all weapons be balanced against each other? Especially considering how fundamentally different ammo and non-ammo weapons handle, and how engagement times effect how useful a weapon is. Almost all ballistic weapons are relatively more ammo hungry than the original rules had them, and they compete fairly well against other weapons of other weights. MGs, however, have an insane amount of fire time per ton of ammo. You could give them a substantial damage boost and still keep them on a theoretical plane with everything else simply by having them chew up ammo.

If you didn't follow what I was saying about people who want an MG buff, click the link, see the poll, be enlightened.

[Xando Parapasu]

It straddles the line. It fires Sabot rounds which can propel a Bullet or other projectiles.

[Xando Parapasu]

Critical Fumble, on 17 March 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Why shouldn't all weapons be balanced against each other? Especially considering how fundamentally different ammo and non-ammo weapons handle, and how engagement times effect how useful a weapon is. Almost all ballistic weapons are relatively more ammo hungry than the original rules had them, and they compete fairly well against other weapons of other weights. MGs, however, have an insane amount of fire time per ton of ammo. You could give them a substantial damage boost and still keep them on a theoretical plane with everything else simply by having them chew up ammo.

If you didn't follow what I was saying about people who want an MG buff, click the link, see the poll, be enlightened.

A weapon should be balanced against similar weapons. A 0.5 ton weapon should not be as effective as a 15 ton weapon. Ten ton weapons should be on par with one another but weaker than 15 ton weapons.

So a MG that is doing more damage per second than other 0.5 ton weapons is unbalancing. Smaller weapons do less damage and reduced range in the BattleTech Universe. So as long as a MG is as useful/ effective as SRM2s and small lasers I will be fine.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

So you just admitted you have even less of a point to make given the ablative nature of armour in btech.

A modern MG uses FMJ rounds (lead covered in another metal) and can tear thru soft targets. If you want a bullet to do thru armor like Kevlar you need a Teflon coated bullet. An A/C round designed to use against heavily armored targets will most likely be using depleted uranium slugs. Those are obviously denser than lead...

A solid metal slug of an MG (FMJ lead round) to go thru hardened armor for 2 damage within a 2 second burst when the CoF is 15 feet wide at 100 meters. Let's not add the point of one or both of those mechs moving at the time.

Comparatively the same metal slug (still FMJ only larger) hitting one point on a target doing the 2 damage an AC does currently.

Since we have to go with the current example that A/C rounds can destroy armor we have to take an unconfirmed belief that the AC's are using a heavier than lead metal.

So I'm actually supporting an argument that for MG's to do damage similar to an AC you need different types of ammo.

Though that will still not change the difference between a point of impact weapon against an MG's cone of fire...

[Sifright]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

A weapon should be balanced against similar weapons. A 0.5 ton weapon should not be as effective as a 15 ton weapon. Ten ton weapons should be on par with one another but weaker than 15 ton weapons.

So a MG that is doing more damage per second than other 0.5 ton weapons is unbalancing. Smaller weapons do less damage and reduced range in the BattleTech Universe. So as long as a MG is as useful/ effective as SRM2s and small lasers I will be fine.

That takes an overly simplistic view and treats damage as the only balancing concern which is terrible from a design perspective.

All three weapon types have something that makes them especially good compared to the other groups and worse in other ways. (for MWO)

Lasers, No ammo concern pin point precision.

Ballistics, Powerful burst of damage high precision

Missiles, Lots of damage highly scalable weapon solution (see linear increase in tonnage for damage)

Their downsides

Lasers, High heat

Ballistics. Ammo concerns, Ammo explosions

Missiles, Lack of precision, Ammo explosion

Balancing is essentially a juggling act to maintain usefulness of weapons whilst keeping those weapon characteristic broadly in mind.

Obviously exceptions exist in each weapon category.

Comparitive analysis which only takes damage into account is incredibly flawed.

The MG suffers from enough downsides in comparison to its weight cousin the SL that it dealing more damage is not only acceptable but needed to make up for it's flaws.

Otherwise there will never be a case where we shouldn't choose a different mech and fit SL or MLs.

Edited by Sifright, 17 March 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

A weapon should be balanced against similar weapons. A 0.5 ton weapon should not be as effective as a 15 ton weapon. Ten ton weapons should be on par with one another but weaker than 15 ton weapons.

So a MG that is doing more damage per second than other 0.5 ton weapons is unbalancing. Smaller weapons do less damage and reduced range in the BattleTech Universe. So as long as a MG is as useful/ effective as SRM2s and small lasers I will be fine.

You can not balance purely by damage and weight. ROF, range, heat, ammo and projectile speed are also factors.

And, in TT, the weight of the MG + ammo + Heatsinks is equal to the weight of SL + ammo + Heatsink. Meaning that the MG takes 1.5 tons (.5 for weapon, 1 ton ammo vs. .5 ton for SL +1 ton for a heatsink).

The MG in MWO should be doing around 1.2-1.4 DPS to be balanced with the small laser, and then it would be an effective (but not OP) weapon.

[Yokaiko]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

So a MG that is doing more damage per second than other 0.5 ton weapons is unbalancing. Smaller weapons do less damage and reduced range in the BattleTech Universe. So as long as a MG is as useful/ effective as SRM2s and small lasers I will be fine.

Except for the less range, ammo dependence and possibly of ammo explosion.

[Xando Parapasu]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

well in any mech larger than the phract AC/2 never gets used infact AC/2s don't really see use in general in MWO outside of the 4X phract so i'm not sure i would agree with you.

It's a decent weapon but it still costs to much weight for what it does.

As should be the case. Once you get into the assault class or high end heavies, light weapons don't get the job done like the big boys do. I saw a few light pilots eat up Atlas with 6 small lasers on a Jenner. If 6 smalls can do that 4 MG doing similar damage should be acceptable. considering it is going to have some lasers to add in and it IS doing the damage with out heat. 3 SSRM2s is considered OP because they hit for 5 damage per salvo. Make MGs do more damage per weapon and we will have two OP light killing weapons. Damage equal to its size, a cool down and something like a Laser since the damage will be due to the volume of rounds pumped into to the target (sandblasting). That is how I see a MG. It is not to powerful but not to weak either.

[MustrumRidcully]

KuruptU4Fun, on 17 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Ok, then since you so desire, we'll take this discussion back to the basics.

A weapon that shoots a round that is designed to penetrate weapons grade armor: A/C 2.
A weapon that is designed to shoot a round against unarmored targets: MG's.

An AC round will atomize a soft target if hit with one directly.
A MG round will bounce off an armored target.

How is that related to Battletech?

A weapon that shoots a round taht is designed to deal 2 damage against mech armor over 10 seconds: AC/2
A weapon that shoots a round that is designed to deal 2 damage against a mech armor over 10 seconds: MG

A weapon that shoots a round taht is designed to deal 2 damage against mech armor over 10 seconds over 720m: AC/2
A weapon that shoots a round taht is designed to deal 2 damage against mech armor over 10 seconds over 90m: MG

A weapon that kills 2d6 infantry units per turn: MG
A weapon that kills 1 infantry unit per turn: AC/2


Weapon that are useful for a Spider or Cicada to fill its 4 balistic slots in MW:O: None
Ballistic Weapons that are useful for a Spider or Cicada that it could be equipped as a pair or even in a quad array in Battletech : Machine Gun

[Commander Kobold]

even if we did bring the MG dps up to the SL level the SL will still be better because it doesn't need ammo.

But again WHY DOES EVERYONE HATE THE IDEA OF AN MG BEING A VALID WEAPON CHOICE?

[Xando Parapasu]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

That takes an overly simplistic view and treats damage as the only balancing concern which is terrible from a design perspective.

All three weapon types have something that makes them especially good compared to the other groups and worse in other ways. (for MWO)

Lasers, No ammo concern pin point precision.

Ballistics, Powerful burst of damage high precision

Missiles, Lots of damage highly scalable weapon solution (see linear increase in tonnage for damage)

Their downsides

Lasers, High heat

Ballistics. Ammo concerns, Ammo explosions

Missiles, Lack of precision, Ammo explosion

Balancing is essentially a juggling act to maintain usefulness of weapons whilst keeping those weapon characteristic broadly in mind.

Obviously exceptions exist in each weapon category.

Comparitive analysis which only takes damage into account is incredibly flawed.

The MG suffers from enough downsides in comparison to its weight cousin the SL that it dealing more damage is not only acceptable but needed to make up for it's flaws.

Otherwise there will never be a case where we shouldn't choose a different mech and fit SL or MLs.

So do away with some of the downsides. Buff the damage, give it a cool down, A MG will not have the same pinpoint damage as a AC will they do not fire the same way. Make it a 1DpS(0.1 damage per bullet) with a 0.75 burst duration, and 2.25 cool down, now you are in the league of its small weapon cousins. Now you are on par with the laser with the worry of ammo explosions like the SRM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

The one point of fact that you missed in your statement Mustrum is the difference between a point of impact weapon and a weapon that has a cone of fire that gets larger the farther you are away from the target.

To "realistically" make the MG's a comparatively viable weapon to the A/C 2 would be to have it deal more damage in that cone of fire than the AC does at it's point of impact.

[Deathlike]

Yokaiko, on 17 March 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Ironically today.

One legged raven that was already red structure. lol

YOU NEED A NERF!

[Xando Parapasu]

KuruptU4Fun, on 17 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

The one point of fact that you missed in your statement Mustrum is the difference between a point of impact weapon and a weapon that has a cone of fire that gets larger the farther you are away from the target.

To "realistically" make the MG's a comparatively viable weapon to the A/C 2 would be to have it deal more damage in that cone of fire than the AC does at it's point of impact.

Should not be compared to the AC2. That is the #1 problem.
AC2
6 tons
75 shells per ton (26 lbs each)
Fires 52 lbs of ordinance per second

MG
0.5 Tons
2000 rounds per ton (1 lb. each)
fires 10 lbs of ordinance per second.

You cannot compare these weapons and make them equal. The MG will just be way OP.

I want the MG fixed not OP.

Edited by Xando Parapasu, 17 March 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Should not be compared to the AC2. That is the #1 problem.
AC2
6 tons
75 shells per ton (26 lbs each)
Fires 52 lbs of ordinance per second

MG
0.5 Tons
2000 rounds per ton (1 lb. each)
fires 10 lbs of ordinance per second.

You cannot compare these weapons and make them equal. The MG will just be way OP.

I want the MG fixed not OP.

Are you arguing that canon would have to scale up the size of the MG to balance out the damage the AC makes due to it's size?

[Sifright]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Should not be compared to the AC2. That is the #1 problem.
AC2
6 tons
75 shells per ton (26 lbs each)
Fires 52 lbs of ordinance per second

MG
0.5 Tons
2000 rounds per ton (1 lb. each)
fires 10 lbs of ordinance per second.

You cannot compare these weapons and make them equal. The MG will just be way OP.

I want the MG fixed not OP.

meh call the AC/2 ammo discarding sabot weight issue solved.

most of the weight discards in the air giving it the range compared to the mg problem solved.
but no for real the AC/2 is 4dps, i'm arguing for 1.5-2dps MGs. AC/2 will still be better.

by the by the AC/2 is definitely a medium and up weighted mech weapon. 6 tonnes put at 20% heavier than the LL. Odd considering the AC/2 is the 2nd lightest ballistic.

[Sifright]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

So do away with some of the downsides. Buff the damage, give it a cool down, A MG will not have the same pinpoint damage as a AC will they do not fire the same way. Make it a 1DpS(0.1 damage per bullet) with a 0.75 burst duration, and 2.25 cool down, now you are in the league of its small weapon cousins. Now you are on par with the laser with the worry of ammo explosions like the SRM.

Well the main argument against that is that we don't want to have homogeneous weapons.

There is no point having separate weapon categories if they don't behave differently. Doing what you just suggest would simplify balancing it but at the same time it would reduce the number of interesting choices that could be made assuming a viable mg with current mechanics but at 1.5-2dps

There is something to be said for having more interesting weapons that don't fit the standard cookie cutter modes but at the same time the end result of using said weapons still needs to be useful.

Edited by Sifright, 17 March 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Team Leader]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Should not be compared to the AC2. That is the #1 problem.

Lol, yeah besides the fact that they're both anti mech weapons that do the same damage just at different ranges? Haha, ok man, sure