251 replies to this topic

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

That's just it, the Sarna.net page on MG's states that they are effective against BM's, it does not state that MG's are effective against BM armor, so PGI's implementation of the Crit bonuses over overall damage does fall within justifiable interpretation of that page.

lololololololololol



I nearly burst out laughing at work well played sir.

Care to name a mech that doesn't fit tonnes and tonnes of armour?

Your argument is like saying "WELL THE WORLD IS WARMING BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE HUMANS DOING IT"

hahahha

[Esplodin]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

That's just it, the Sarna.net page on MG's states that they are effective against BM's, it does not state that MG's are effective against BM armor, so PGI's implementation of the Crit bonuses over overall damage does fall within justifiable interpretation of that page.

[Sifright]

Esplodin, on 21 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

I think he broke spocks mind.

hehehe

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 21 March 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

lololololololololol



I nearly burst out laughing at work well played sir.

Care to name a mech that doesn't fit tonnes and tonnes of armour?

Your argument is like saying "WELL THE WORLD IS WARMING BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE HUMANS DOING IT"

hahahha

I'm honestly not opposed to buffing the MG (just not a voiced proponent of it) as long as it retains a very short range in terms of damage. And has problems when boated (which boating all weapons should come with penalties IMO) then I think a balance could be struck...

[Terror Teddy]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

That's just it, the Sarna.net page on MG's states that they are effective against BM's, it does not state that MG's are effective against BM armor, so PGI's implementation of the Crit bonuses over overall damage does fall within justifiable interpretation of that page.

I'll assume you are trolling.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Esplodin, on 21 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

I know, it's was pretty base when I wrote it. Just thought I should point out something I've actually never seen argued before.

[MustrumRidcully]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I know, it's was pretty base when I wrote it. Just thought I should point out something I've actually never seen argued before.

You're right. It may not be much, but I think this deserves some kind of prize, because I haven't seen an original thought in the MG discussion in a while, and certainly not on the "MG are fine" camp.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

I'm honestly not opposed to buffing the MG (just not a voiced proponent of it) as long as it retains a very short range in terms of damage. And has problems when boated (which boating all weapons should come with penalties IMO) then I think a balance could be struck...

well the issue is that it's just so sub standard right now what would be considered an insane buff for any other weapon system +50% damage over time is still not enough to make mgs worthwhile.

Boating is an issue for every single weapon though and unlike other weapon types the largest number of BS points is what 6 with the Jaeger mech.

I can't imagine any one would be dumb enough to fill it with MGs even if they did 2DPS per gun. 12 DPS at 90m on a heavy mech is awful.

[stjobe]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Just thought I should point out something I've actually never seen argued before.

You haven't seen it before because it's an inane argument and most people have more sense than that.

The BT MG was just an ordinary anti-'mech weapon like any other. Sure, it was on the lower end of the scale damage- and range-wise, but it was a perfectly serviceable weapon, especially for lighter 'mechs.

What PGI has done is to take this weapon and turn it into some kind of ... well, I don't know what to type that isn't offensive. The crit buff does nothing for lighter 'mechs (I'm sure it's a nice bonus for heavies and assaults, but they can also mount other ballistic weapons - lights can't), and stubbornly refusing to buff the damage of the MG deprives everyone of a sub-6 ton ballistic weapon worth mounting.

And the hell of it is, the solution to fixing the MG is so simple it almost hurts. Triple its per-projectile damage, optionally roll back the crit buff, and we're done.

Nobody, and nobody, will think a 90m, ammo-dependent, continuous-fire 1.2 DPS MG is overpowered, not even when boated by JagerMechs.

It will, however, give some purpose to the SDR-5K, the RVN-4X, and the CDA-3C.

PGI, just do it. Stop faffing about and do it.

[Esplodin]

Sifright, on 21 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I can't imagine any one would be dumb enough to fill it with MGs even if they did 2DPS per gun. 12 DPS at 90m on a heavy mech is awful.

Not to mention if ammo fell in line with the rest of the ballistics, that would be 12.5 seconds of firing per ton of ammo, with ZERO front loaded damage.

[Sifright]

Esplodin, on 21 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Not to mention if ammo fell in line with the rest of the ballistics, that would be 12.5 seconds of firing per ton of ammo, with ZERO front loaded damage.

Yes. The lack of front loading damage with MG and AC/2 are their biggest weaknesses at least the AC/2 can act like a saw chopping through mechs rapidly as it does high dps the mg just flounders around doing sweet F-A.

i'm pretty sure that there are infantry weapons in btech if scaled to MWO's firing systems speed that would do more damage than the mech MG

[KuruptU4Fun]

stjobe, on 21 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

You haven't seen it before because it's an inane argument and most people have more sense than that.

There was some sarcasm behind the statement, just not to the point of trolling...

stjobe, on 21 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

And the hell of it is, the solution to fixing the MG is so simple it almost hurts. Triple its per-projectile damage, optionally roll back the crit buff, and we're done.

Nobody, and nobody, will think a 90m, ammo-dependent, continuous-fire 1.2 DPS MG is overpowered, not even when boated by JagerMechs.

It will, however, give some purpose to the SDR-5K, the RVN-4X, and the CDA-3C.

PGI, just do it. Stop faffing about and do it.

That I could get behind...

[Imagine Dragons]

"HEY GUZ! We mounted this machine gun twice the size of a GAU-8 onto your battlemech! Its for anti-infantry duty only.

Seriously, don't use it on mec- HEY STOP THAT!"

The GAU-8 is the 30mm rotatry cannon on the A-10 ground attack jet. Its primarily used to destroy tanks... which happen to be armored vehicles with thick armor...

And were saying a ballistic weapon of twice the size of the GAU-8 should not be effective against other armored vehicles... or armored battlemechs...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA...

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 21 March 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

There was some sarcasm behind the statement, just not to the point of trolling...


That I could get behind...

but but this is what we have been arguing towards for the last what 3-5 months? |:

I personally want to see 1.5DPS first and then we can nerf or buff from there as needed to ensure the weapon works well. mainly because PGI has shown them selves to be so buff adverse for certain weapon systems it would take them another 6 months to a year before they would look at mgs again if they still needed a buff where as a nerf comes within a month of two if the weapon needs it.

[stjobe]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

There was some sarcasm behind the statement, just not to the point of trolling...

Sorry, too much forum usage has broken my sarcasm detector - sometimes people really ARE that stupid

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

That I could get behind...

Join the fun! Make endless threads and posts about how easily the MG could get fixed! Get likes from me, FupDup, Sifright, Esplodin, and General Taskeen! The fight for a viable MG must go on!

For the cause!

[Wildstreak]

MGs have a bonus never attributed to them, they cost no heat to use.
They were a big deal when ICE Mechs existed.

[Sifright]

Merchant, on 21 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

MGs have a bonus never attributed to them, they cost no heat to use.
They were a big deal when ICE Mechs existed.

The no heat doesn't come close to making them acceptable in MWO. it's so far off the mark with mgs that they are a complete joke.

[KuruptU4Fun]

I've seen (every time it seems) that the point you're making gets buried under the arguments, honestly I wish there were a way to post your suggestions without a fight happening over them. Hopefully with ECM and LRM splash damage getting revamped MG's are not long to follow.

[KuruptU4Fun]

stjobe, on 21 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

[/b]
Sorry, too much forum usage has broken my sarcasm detector - sometimes people really ARE that stupid


Join the fun! Make endless threads and posts about how easily the MG could get fixed! Get likes from me, FupDup, Sifright, Esplodin, and General Taskeen! The fight for a viable MG must go on!

For the cause!

Then I'll keep on the lookout and throw my support towards the cause...

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Then I'll keep on the lookout and throw my support towards the cause...

yaaay, a convert to the land of the rational.

Now if only we could get a pgi dev to do the same :|