15 replies to this topic

[DrSecretStache]

I'm considering asking in the next ask the devs if they would be willing to consider making a new, non-cannon weapon that fits a happy medium between the mg and the ac2: one that makes heat, but can be viable on a light mech and do so some damage. However, before I do so, I would like some numbers so as to not get totally dismissed on the subject for whatever reason, because there is good reason to introduce such a weapon, just as there are fair and honest reasons against it.

I know that there is a lot of hype on the subject on the moment, but I'm hoping to get some honest answers on this one.

I'm not going to suggest what would be my ideal ac/1. I encourage others to do so, but this poll is solely for such a weapon to be added, and left to the devs to decide how.

However, what would be required or such a weapon to fit within apparent dev parameters but still be viable would be:
1. it creates heat
2. It is less weight than the ac2
3. it is more weight than the mg
4. it follows the same mechanic as an ac2, as opposed to an mg, in that it's purpose is to deal damage.

The secondary options are mostly for qualitative feedback. My own personal input that I'll provide is that I think it is a good idea, because the few light ballistic models, and even the models with just many ballistic hard points in general, could use the help to both increase variety and balance better.

Hopefully, this can become a full fledged poll. Also please note, the I voted yes/no options are only there to make the poll function. If I didn't have to, I wouldn't have them there.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that this is under the assumption that mgs don't change from their intended role by the devs, which is looking to be a good possibility.

Edited by Zoughtbaj, 08 April 2013 - 03:56 PM.

[stjobe]

FFS no, enough of this insanity. There's a perfectly serviceable weapon already in the game if the devs would just stop ignoring facts and buff it properly.

Just give the MG a damage buff and be done with it.

[DrSecretStache]

stjobe, on 08 April 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

FFS no, enough of this insanity. There's a perfectly serviceable weapon already in the game if the devs would just stop ignoring facts and buff it properly.

Just give the MG a damage buff and be done with it.

As much as I'd love that, I'm making this under the premise that they're sticking to their guns. I know the whole "but they've reversed on so many things" argument applies, but mg so far hasn't been one of them. Which means that lights with ballistic hardpoints would be in serious trouble if they don't.

Edited by Zoughtbaj, 08 April 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[FrostCollar]

I don't like it because:

• It's redundant. Why add a weapon that acts in a substantially similar way to how the MG could act when we could simply change the MG?
  
• Alternatives exist. Why not add the lovely, lovely Magshot instead, timeline be damned? Or the Light AC/2? It seems to embody much of what you're talking about.
  
• It's an option that leaves the MG in its current state. I don't want that.

At the very least, why don't they finally test some of that alternate ammunition and give one variety with current damage and crits and another with elevated damage and no crit boost? With the choice, we'd get to see which people prefer.

[Homeless Bill]

Why not just fix the machine gun? I dislike their balancing strategy of trying to fix X by adjusting Y and adding Z. Just fix X.

[Ryvucz]

FrostCollar, on 08 April 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

I don't like it because:

• It's redundant. Why add a weapon that acts in a substantially similar way to how the MG could act when we could simply change the MG?
  
• Alternatives exist. Why not add the lovely, lovely Magshot instead, timeline be damned? Or the Light AC/2? It seems to embody much of what you're talking about.
  
• It's an option that leaves the MG in its current state. I don't want that.

At the very least, why don't they finally test some of that alternate ammunition and give one variety with current damage and crits and another with elevated damage and no crit boost? With the choice, we'd get to see which people prefer.

Circa 3066 and 3068. Current time is 3050.

[FrostCollar]

Ryvucz, on 08 April 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Circa 3066 and 3068. Current time is 3050.

FrostCollar, on 08 April 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

...timeline be damned...

Yes, I know they're not in the timeline. However, I still find their introduction preferable to the addition of an "AC-1."

And I find an MG damage buff preferable to both.

[Zynk]

A/C1 not needed they need to fix MG's.

[Victor Morson]

I voted yes, but only because you specified "AC/1 type weapon" and not an actual AC/1.

For the sake of being completest, that would effectively be the Rifles:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle

The only "useful" one is the Heavy Rifle (the damage listed there looks high, but does not penetrate 'mech armor very well at all). These are effectively modern 21st century tank guns, and the precursor to ACs in Battletech.

Still, I wouldn't mind the Heavy Rifle being thrown in sometime if they feel like adding a new gun.

[FupDup]

Buffing the MG is of course the easiest, fastest, and most preferable solution; but it simply will not happen. Evidence:

Quote

CCQ 3: Why is Machine Gun damage so low?
A: Partly due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules, partially due to how we chose to make it useful. When equipping a MG, keep in mind that it is not meant to burn through armor but is very useful for tearing up internals (crits). Bumping MG damage will turn it into a laser that can be kept on with no heat penalty until it runs out of ammo. Now imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! We are still investigating balance of the MG but don’t expect any significant increase in damage.

Quote

Maxx Blue: What is the desired role for machine guns, and do you feel they are currently working as intended? In casual play I'm having a hard time determining if they are hurting the enemy in any meaningful way.
A: They are working as intended. They do not pose a real threat to a fully armored `Mech, however once damage, machine guns are deadly against internal components.[/color]

Quote

oldhasu: When ammo is destroyed by a critical hit, sometimes it explodes. Sometimes not. How does this calculated? What is the percentage of the probability?
A: There are two different times that ammo can explode. If an ammo bin is destroyed by a critical hit (each bin currently has 10 health), there is a 10% chance that the ammo remaining in that bin will explode. When a location, such as the right torso, is destroyed, each ammo bin in that location that had not already been destroyed by crit hits has an individual 10% chance to explode. There are two exceptions to this. The first is that, if you have ammo stored in your arm, and your arm falls off when your side torso is destroyed, there is no chance of the ammo exploding. The other is that Gauss Rifle ammo never explodes. However, all the explosion rules also apply to Gauss Rifles, except that they have a 90% chance of exploding.

It means that the RVN-4X, SDR-5K, and CDA-3C are f*cked in the a$$.

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[DrSecretStache]

Zynk, on 08 April 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

A/C1 not needed they need to fix MG's.

I know. Trust me, I know. I really, really want them to make mgs viable. But by all accounts, it's not happening. Even if you take the 3rd person and whatnot accounts, those were fairly general posts (3rd person not coming soon does not mean it can't be coming in a year or two, for example). This time around on mgs, however, they didn't even say they would be watching it or balancing as needed. They flat out said that they aren't going to give it any major damage buff. I'm taking that for a fairly definite no.

So the only alternatives would be doing nothing/wait for ten years, altering the timeline, or introducing something that is non-canon.

Seriously, I'm open to suggestions besides an ac/1. I just want something to happen. And that something apparently isn't going to be MGs.

[Ryokens leap]

U would need to boat 6 or 8 to be effective, kinda like the ac/2.

[Artgathan]

I like the idea. The ballistics currently have no 'middle ground' weapon that is suitable for use on light mechs. Either you take 1.5 tons and be useless, or you take 7 tons and carry one sub-par weapon with limited ammunition.

[Rayah]

I don't see why, other than weight restrictions, you would pick one over an AC/2. They could just make MGs useful...

If they would break cannon to add an AC/1, then why not just break and give the MGs the buff they need?

Edited by Rayzor, 08 April 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Xelah]

Make machine guns useful. Why waste coding time making up something else when we could just fix the one we have?

[eblackthorn]

Victor Morson, on 08 April 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

I voted yes, but only because you specified "AC/1 type weapon" and not an actual AC/1.

For the sake of being completest, that would effectively be the Rifles:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle

The only "useful" one is the Heavy Rifle (the damage listed there looks high, but does not penetrate 'mech armor very well at all). These are effectively modern 21st century tank guns, and the precursor to ACs in Battletech.

Still, I wouldn't mind the Heavy Rifle being thrown in sometime if they feel like adding a new gun.

How did i not know these existed?