550 replies to this topic

[Mahws]

1) No cooldown is a disadvantage, not an advantage.
2) Having to face hug someone to be a threat in a light mech is a disadvantage, not an advantage.

[El Bandito]

Mahws, on 14 March 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

1) No cooldown is a disadvantage, not an advantage. 2) Having to face hug someone to be a threat in a light mech is a disadvantage, not an advantage.

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.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 March 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

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.

If it's garbage, it gets a buff up to "bad". Beyond that... "working as intended".

[FupDup]

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.

Cooldown is only an advantage or disadvantage based on how much damage each shot does. Since MGs do pooptastic damage, their lack of cooldown has pretty much no effect at all (compared to the example of an AC/20 with no cooldown being horrendously OP).

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

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

Beats being circled by a 3L.

Edited by FupDup, 14 March 2013 - 06:59 PM.

[Mahws]

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.

Right, except if the AC20 had no cooldown (or considering that doesn't exist, if it fired 10 shots a second like the MG) at the same DPS it would be a 14 tonne AC2. No 'cooldown' means that you don't get to dump your damage on one precise location and you need to have your cross hairs on target 100% of the time to be doing damage, rather than for a second every three seconds with a laser or an instant every three seconds with a PPC/AC.

There is no situation where constant fire is better than short burst weapons. This game is about accuracy, when you've got the front armor on an enemy stripped every single piece of damage done to arms, legs or back is wasted. If constant fire was better why would anyone take a Gauss rifle when the AC2 does more dps? Because holding your fire constantly over the same component of your enemy is practically impossible.

Edited by Mahws, 14 March 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[Kaspirikay]

Lol no cooldown disadvantage
Mfw

[Shifty Eyes]

Kaspirikay, on 14 March 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Lol no cooldown disadvantage
Mfw

Like what's been said, I think he means "no cooldown + equal DPS" is a disadvantage. Lots of weapons have the same DPS but different damage per shot. Having to train on someone for 10 seconds to get a certain damage rather than slamming someone with one shot for the same damage and running away while your weapon cools down for 10 seconds is always the poorer option.

[Mahws]

Kaspirikay, on 14 March 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Lol no cooldown disadvantage
Mfw

Do you just not know how to use that phrase, or are you saying your face is a black atlas silhouette when someone tells you that a weapon that requires constant aiming for the same DPS is inferior?

[Mavairo]

CancR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

2 dps is insane., that means my 4 MG spider does 8dps. 1 DPS is much more reasonable if a little much maybe as that same spider is now doing 4 DPS

[

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.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 March 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[Major Derps]

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.

No logic or real world comparisons work here...also, this is easily answered...because of crits. Stack a few mgs together, let heavier mechs drop the targets armor, then let loose on their exposed internals, and you will find things popping before you know it. They are crit seekers, not damage dealers.

[Mavairo]

Mokey Mot, on 14 March 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

No logic or real world comparisons work here...also, this is easily answered...because of crits. Stack a few mgs together, let heavier mechs drop the targets armor, then let loose on their exposed internals, and you will find things popping before you know it. They are crit seekers, not damage dealers.

Or you could you know, not fail at life, and just equip real weapons and actually kill the mechs in the first place with the exact same amount or less of effort.
Crit seeking is a complete joke and a myth at that.
By the time an MG can rip something off, the structural component attatched to the item in question can already easily be vaped off anyway. So you're losing cbills for using MGs. Not to mention over all lethality, in addition to wasting your time and the time of your allies.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 March 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Major Derps]

Mavairo, on 14 March 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Or you could you know, not fail at life, and just equip real weapons and actually kill the mechs in the first place with the exact same amount or less of effort.
Crit seeking is a complete joke and a myth at that.
By the time an MG can rip something off, the structural component attatched to the item in question can already easily be vaped off anyway. So you're losing cbills for using MGs. Not to mention over all lethality, in addition to wasting your time and the time of your allies.

I don't use mgs, just sick of people complaining because they don't know how to use them. Also, people think crit seeking is a myth because they can't pop engines with them.

Edited by Mokey Mot, 14 March 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

They can't because machine guns in Battletech are an anti infantry weapon that does one damage to a mech. Get an Autocannon if you want to do more damage.

[Mavairo]

Mokey Mot, on 14 March 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

I don't use mgs, just sick of people complaining because they don't know how to use them.

See above.
Seriously, you want to tell me -that- is a viable weapon system? Notice, how in only 1 hit later the whole component structure is completely removed anyway, on both the kitty cat, and the cataphract. And how the commando in the beginning just keels over dead anyway.

"wait till someone else does all the work and then pray" is not a viable weapon for anything resembling competitive play over the Suck For Luck ranking bottom feeders. You need Good weapons, and there are ways to get them onto various lights, instead of using MGs.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c228f842c133ee4 case in point. MGs aren't even useful on mechs that are supposed to carry them and it's better to just slap on something bigger and badder.

What would you rather do? Actually contribute to kill generation? Or just sit there like a faceroller, doing absolutely nothing while the battle unfolds around you?

Flat out, the 3L raven is a superior mech (without ECM), than any 4x. The 5K spider is better off by far with an XL and an AC2 than it is the MGs. And the 5D far out performs the 5K, as does even the 5v. There is simply put no reason what so ever to ever take a 4X raven or a 5k spider other than stubborn ness.

MGs suck there's no special ''trick to using them'' that you couldn't readily apply to real weapon systems, which perform better in every other category anyway.

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Do you want a Machine Gun to do 40 damage per turn like an AC2? A 0.5 ton weapon doing the same damage as a weapon 12 times it size?

You mean how it does the same damage as a weapon 12 times its weight in TT?

Again, you seem to be missing the fact that one can shoot targets across the map, and the other has a max range of 90m.

This argument that MG's will somehow become crazy OP if they do real damage is nonsensical, and utterly without basis.

[Mahws]

Mokey Mot, on 14 March 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

I don't use mgs, just sick of people complaining because they don't know how to use them. Also, people think crit seeking is a myth because they can't pop engines with them.

We know how to use them, their use is just crap.

For the same weight as four machine guns + 1 tonne ammo you can take three medium lasers. Or six small lasers. Or two Medium Pulse Lasers and a heatsink.

Using a machine gun the way they're supposed to be used is never as effective as taking energy weapons or missiles on a mech of the same weight. Crit seeking is a myth because it's ineffective and completely useless compared to all the things you could do with the same amount of weight.

Edward Steiner, on 14 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

They can't because machine guns in Battletech are an anti infantry weapon that does one damage to a mech. Get an Autocannon if you want to do more damage.

If you're going to try to argue from canon at least do it right. They do 2 damage (same as an AC2) a round and were introduced to the game before infantry. Furthermore pulse lasers have the same bonus, don't see anyone clammering to have them be completely useless based on 'canon'.

[Major Derps]

Mavairo, on 14 March 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

See above.
Seriously, you want to tell me -that- is a viable weapon system? Notice, how in only 1 hit later the whole component structure is completely removed anyway, on both the kitty cat, and the cataphract. And how the commando in the beginning just keels over dead anyway.

"wait till someone else does all the work and then pray" is not a viable weapon for anything resembling competitive play over the Suck For Luck ranking bottom feeders. You need Good weapons, and there are ways to get them onto various lights, instead of using MGs.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c228f842c133ee4 case in point. MGs aren't even useful on mechs that are supposed to carry them and it's better to just slap on something bigger and badder.

What would you rather do? Actually contribute to kill generation? Or just sit there like a faceroller, doing absolutely nothing while the battle unfolds around you?

Flat out, the 3L raven is a superior mech (without ECM), than any 4x. The 5K spider is better off by far with an XL and an AC2 than it is the MGs. And the 5D far out performs the 5K, as does even the 5v. There is simply put no reason what so ever to ever take a 4X raven or a 5k spider other than stubborn ness.

MGs suck there's no special ''trick to using them'' that you couldn't readily apply to real weapon systems, which perform better in every other category anyway.

All you did was prove my point. The armor takes for ever to drop, but when you hit the cats ears with the Mgs, the lrm 15 is destroyed almost instantly. But whatever, I've got better things to do than argue with you, I'd rather you continue to not carry mgs, and know I will remain combat effective until I tap out.

Edited by Mokey Mot, 14 March 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Mavairo]

Mokey Mot, on 14 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

All you did was prove my point. The armor takes for ever to drop, but when you hit the cats ears with the Mgs, the lrm 15 is destroyed almost instantly

Actually no, I proved mine.

1 LL hit later the ear popped anyway. Infact just leveling the component took nearly the -exact- same amount of time on the other ear. And that was without using an SRM. As a matter of fact the LL was off of CD at the moment the weapon popped anyway. It wasn't ''nearly instant''.

The Cataphract actually lost it's arms -quicker- than just waiting for the weapon to be knocked out.

It's a joke junk weapon.
Maybe you need glasses.

Once you and your buddies get above Suck for Luck tier, and start focus firing, the use of the MG becomes even more marginalized than it already was.

Not only that, but I could have done that component destruction at much greater ranges with the -real- weapons in that vid.

That was against a stationary target, at point blank range. The perfect conditions for MGs to shine. And they failed at it despite this. In a real match, I'd have plucked the ear off at a much greater range, long before the MG ever came to bear.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 March 2013 - 08:52 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

Edward Steiner, on 14 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

They can't because machine guns in Battletech are an anti infantry weapon that does one damage to a mech. Get an Autocannon if you want to do more damage.

lol.

Your ignorance is showing.

MG's do 2 dmg in battletech.

Battletech is mech on mech combat, only later once they expanded the universe did the MG's get a bonus to infantry in the form of killing 2d6 soldiers.

MG's were never a Anti-infantry weapon, they merely work well against them.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 14 March 2013 - 08:55 PM.

[MayGay]

someone has been using a spider 5k

as for your argument that mgs are anti 'mech weapons that just happen to be useful against infantry, that is only somewhat true, however, the machine gun in the TT is a running joke. 2 damage for a half ton plus ammo with no heat (.25 for clan mgs fyi) is not awful. What is awful is the range of 3 hexes (90m), and the fact that small lasers out mach them in almost every category. 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. This is the reason no one takes Firestarters or Vulcans over Jenners, Wolfhounds, or Hermes for level 1 'mechs, and when I mod a Bushwhacker the first thing that happens is the machine guns become medium lasers.

Edited by James Griffin, 14 March 2013 - 09:29 PM.