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.