550 replies to this topic

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

jay35, on 14 March 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

MGs are there to give people with extra Ballistic slots and tonnage something to throw on to help increase internal crit percentage a bit once their other weapons have cracked through armor. They're not intended to be boated or actually do significant damage on their own.

You're right. The problem is that they aren't even worth that much. With 1.5t to spare, you're better off with an AMS, ECM, another heatsink, ammo for a real weapon, or more armor. You can spend it anywhere and it's all better than dropping it on 1-2 water pistols.(Except maybe on BAP?) A crit buff vs internals just means that they're no longer trash vs internals... whoopty do, they're still trash vs armor.

Flamer has the same issue and still still largely a trash weapon. Both BTW have no range at all. I tried a Flamer for a few games after their buff. Soon after I shelfed the weapon again. Would be nice if they doubled the Flamer's weight but actually made it worth its energy hardpoint. Both of these guns, are horrible on a 1 to 1 hardpoint ratio.

[Carrioncrows]

I've mentioned this many times before.

Easy Fix

Damage: 0.2 Dmg a round
ROF: 10 Rounds a sec
Ammo: 200 rounds of ammo per 1/2 ton. (Yes you should be able to buy 1/2 ton and 1 ton ammo bins for this weapon)

Let it be a pointblank inefficient raw DPS dump.

The trade off is only 20 secs of fire for 1/2 ton (40 total damage) and 40 secs of fire for full ton of ammo (80 total dmg)

[stjobe]

Buffalo Six, on 14 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Look I'll support a bump in the MG damage as soon as they add the mechanic for when your blowing thru ammo with a 2 minute trigger pull following an atlas sanding paint off him and your damn barrels on your precious MG explode because they melted into slag...........

Show us on the damage read-out paper-doll where the bad MG touched you.

Seriously, why do people want useless weapons to remain useless? It boggles the mind.

[Terror Teddy]

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

I've mentioned this many times before.

Easy Fix

Damage: 0.2 Dmg a round
ROF: 10 Rounds a sec
Ammo: 200 rounds of ammo per 1/2 ton. (Yes you should be able to buy 1/2 ton and 1 ton ammo bins for this weapon)

Let it be a pointblank inefficient raw DPS dump.

The trade off is only 20 secs of fire for 1/2 ton (40 total damage) and 40 secs of fire for full ton of ammo (80 total dmg)

I'd rather have 800/ton and and deliver 160 per tonne over 80 seconds.

[rgreat]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

MG's: 20mm vulcan guns
AC/2: 25-35mm autocannons

MG - https://www.youtube....1RnHiEDNQ8#t=3s
AC/2 - https://www.youtube....zBPGfCq21s#t=0s

AC/20 - Automatic version of this: https://www.youtube....Wve21Ln4#t=261s

Edited by rgreat, 14 March 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Esplodin]

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

I've mentioned this many times before.

Easy Fix

Damage: 0.2 Dmg a round
ROF: 10 Rounds a sec
Ammo: 200 rounds of ammo per 1/2 ton. (Yes you should be able to buy 1/2 ton and 1 ton ammo bins for this weapon)

Let it be a pointblank inefficient raw DPS dump.

The trade off is only 20 secs of fire for 1/2 ton (40 total damage) and 40 secs of fire for full ton of ammo (80 total dmg)

Every other balistic has 150 dmg per ton. The only two exceptions are AC20 (rounding error) and the MG (trolololol error, decimals are hard). Anything less than 150 damage/ton is not worth taking. I'm usually for a bit of a nerf with a buff just to keep things balanced, but in this case the MG is so far of into WTF land that it needs working over with the buff hammer in every aspect.

[BloodLegacy]

I think the Lahti would more comparable to an AC2 not a MG. The MG would be more like a .50 cal which would hardly do squat to a mech, even if it were using ablative armor.

[Terror Teddy]

BloodLegacy, on 14 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think the Lahti would more comparable to an AC2 not a MG. The MG would be more like a .50 cal which would hardly do squat to a mech, even if it were using ablative armor.

Have you checked Sarna.net?

MG's are 20mm vulcan guns. Standard MG does 2 damage against mechs and vehicles - they get +12 against infantry PLATOONS.

[Esplodin]

BloodLegacy, on 14 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think the Lahti would more comparable to an AC2 not a MG. The MG would be more like a .50 cal which would hardly do squat to a mech, even if it were using ablative armor.

[Carrioncrows]

Esplodin, on 14 March 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Every other balistic has 150 dmg per ton. The only two exceptions are AC20 (rounding error) and the MG (trolololol error, decimals are hard). Anything less than 150 damage/ton is not worth taking. I'm usually for a bit of a nerf with a buff just to keep things balanced, but in this case the MG is so far of into WTF land that it needs working over with the buff hammer in every aspect.

That's why it's a "INEFFICIENT" raw dps dump.

I'd rather have the Take be the 2 DPS
The Give can be the dmg per ammo, so those that want to boat need to stock up.

If you plan on running a AC20 you don't take just 1 ton of ammo, if you plan on MG's you shouldn't plan on just taking 1 ton of ammo for it either.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 14 March 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[stjobe]

BloodLegacy, on 14 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think the Lahti would more comparable to an AC2 not a MG. The MG would be more like a .50 cal which would hardly do squat to a mech, even if it were using ablative armor.

At least have the common decency to read the thread. MG's are very much NOT .50 cal - they're made to be mounted on, used by, and damage 9-18m tall walking machines of destruction.

[Terror Teddy]

Esplodin, on 14 March 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

There there, I know, some people simply lack the ability to do some research and reading comprehension.

stjobe, on 14 March 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

At least have the common decency to read the thread. MG's are very much NOT .50 cal - they're made to be mounted on, used by, and damage 9-18m tall walking machines of destruction.

Not to mention not infantry portable vehicle mounted

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

That's why it's a "INEFFICIENT" raw dps dump.

I'd rather have the Take be the 2 DPS
The Give can be the dmg per ammo, so those that want to boat need to stock up.

If you plan on running a AC20 you don't take just 1 ton of ammo, if you plan on MG's you shouldn't plan on just taking 1 ton of ammo for it either.

800 ammo per ton and doing 160 damage over 80 seconds.

Slower than any other ballistic slightly more damage over time with 2DPS.

[Esplodin]

Carrioncrows, on 14 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

That's why it's a "INEFFICIENT" raw dps dump.

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?!?!?!??

[Impyrium]

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.

[Sifright]

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.

.... people like you are why we can't have nice things and why propaganda is so effective at swaying the masses....

Everything you posted is pointless and ridiculous and doesn't even come close to approaching a reasonable point about how a game should be designed. Bravo your post wastes at least 2-3KB of bandwidth per person looking at this thread that will never be recovered. I hope you are happy.

[FupDup]

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.

Ironically enough, most of the people opposed to MG buffs try (keyword) to use IRL comparisons as justification.

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

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.

Give us an Autocannon/1 for our Raven 4X, Cicada 3C, and Spider 5K to fill up all of their ballistic slots without gimping themselves and we'll happily oblige. Otherwise, we're going to keep pounding the MG issue because three variants depend on some sort of low-tonnage ballistic to have a place in the game.

Edited by FupDup, 14 March 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[BloodLegacy]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Have you checked Sarna.net?

MG's are 20mm vulcan guns. Standard MG does 2 damage against mechs and vehicles - they get +12 against infantry PLATOONS.

Sarna doesn't have the words Vulcan Cannon anywhere, I see no indication that it would have a ROF of 6,000 RPM like the Vulcan nor any caliber specified.

Reference?

Edited by BloodLegacy, 14 March 2013 - 03:01 PM.

[stjobe]

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

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.

No. "Lore", as you put it, has the MG do the exact same damage to a 'mech as an AC/2, only at a lower range. They are NOT supposed to be weak, they're supposed to be a viable short-range, light-weight anti-'mech weapon. Get too close to a MG-toting 'mech and you'll regret it. That's how it was in "lore".

In "lore", MGs were useful, especially for light 'mechs. In MWO they are useless for any, but especially for lights. It's like upside-down world, and it has to change.

"Lore" supports giving the MG 4 DPS, since that's what the devs gave the AC/2. Most of us aren't even asking for that, but for a smaller buff.

[Terror Teddy]

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.

As you say, it isn't real - so why do YOU think they should be useless? Why NOT give light mechs a viable alternative? I don't give a **** about the lore.

I want balanced viable weapons of all types for all mechs. You have obviously not even read the first post about WHAT makes them bad and WHY there are complaints about them.

BloodLegacy, on 14 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Sarna doesn't have the words Vulcan Cannon anywhere, I see no indication that it would have a ROF of 6,000 RPM like the Vulcan nor any caliber specified.

Reference?

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

Yes, the lack of reading comprehension is staggering.

Read under MODELS.

Vulcans are Gatling guns - same principle.

[Carrioncrows]

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?!?!?!??

Did you not read my post?

It's 80 damage a ton and 40 damage per HALF ton, and yes you should be able to take 1/2 ton ammo bins.

1 ton of ammo (80 dmg) is 40 secs of continuous fire at 2 DPS. That is a LONG TIME.

A ton of AC20 ammo unloads in 28 secs.

2 DPS is reasonable for a 0.5 ton weapon. It's 1/2 the dps of an AC2, zero heat, reasonable ammo and 90m effective range and drops to 0.1 dmg or 1 dps from 90m-200m range.

There is nothing wrong with what i posted above.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 14 March 2013 - 03:12 PM.