63 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

A2rael, on 08 April 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

i agree that the MG should do damage on par with the light laser. yes they generate no heat but that is balanced by the fact that you have to load ammo and ammo does have a tendency to detonate. why have a weapon that needs to be fired all the time to do very little. now that being said i think that i have made a couple kills with MG's running them in banks of 4 and getting lucky but thats about it. i realize that they aren't intended to be the be all end all of mech to mech combat but i would be nice for them to have a use beyond the cool sound effect which turns to an annoying constant assault of noise after a very short period of time.

DPS should be a bit less than small lasers. Since there is no heat, but there is also no cooldown. but things as they are now. the MG are about 1/3 as effective as small laser.

they could REALLY use a dps buff.

[FrostCollar]

Deathlike, on 08 April 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

It is actually more worthwhile to use a UAC5 on a light mech (did that with a Raven-4X with OK results) than it is for an AC2 I believe...

Indeed. Though the AC5 and UAC5 are even heavier and hard to reasonably place on a light mech, they are marginally more useful. My first custom build in the closed beta was a RVN-4X with 2ML, SSRM2, and AC-5. I marveled at how much better it was than the stock 2X. Of course, I was comparing it to a rather low standard, and I learned pretty quickly that it still wasn't all that great compared to the Jenners of the day.

Avimimus, on 08 April 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

If this is a problem then a burst fire mode (with a cool down) would work well. Have machine guns do higher DPS for a few seconds and then pause while the barrel cools down (or the guns reload or something).

This could indeed work, though I think the prospect of PGI changing the way a weapon fires, especially for a weapon that isn't egregiously imbalanced is unlikely. That still wouldn't solve the main issues with the two weapons though, namely that the AC-2 is quite heavy for a light mech and the MG is extremely weak.

[Avimimus]

stjobe, on 08 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

All Rifles have -3 damage versus 'mechs, so the Light Rifle is actually unable to damage 'mechs (it does 3 damage vs non-'mechs, and 0 vs 'mechs).

So no, I'll continue to campaign for a viable MG until PGI sees reason.

Oh, that really sucks.

[aniviron]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

MG's are not meant to be used alone, nor are they supposed to be OP guns like back in the days of earlier MW games. The AC2 is the anti mech MG that people are looking for in the MG. For lights, sets of 4 or more MGs will do damage but it takes time, thats where like on the SDR-5K you take a LL and the MG's and crit enemy mechs into submission.

Sounds like you've never dropped in a light ballistic mech! There's a video on the forums (I don't have the link because the forum search option is currently broken, go figure) of a damage test with 8000 rounds/4xMG in a 5k. It takes multiple minutes and most of the ammo for the player, while standing still, to get through the rear armor of the stationary testing grounds target. It takes more than double the time for 4x mgs to get through the same amount of armor that it takes one small laser.

I will admit that I had it pretty good with my RVN-4X while designing builds, because unlike some of these other poor lights, at least I have two energy hardpoints and a missile hardpoint. The only effective builds I found were the notorious ac20 raven and builds that just completely ignored the ballistic hardpoints. AC2 leaves you with gimped speed, low ammo, and pretty pathetic firepower (not to mention the fact that it's very very difficult to land shots on your predators with, those other lights going at 150kph). AC5 has all the problems of AC2 but is even heavier. LBX10AC does random damage, and not much of it.

[Deathlike]

It may be a good idea to spread that Training Grounds MG video around.. just in case it isn't dreadfully obvious.

[Helsbane]

I would be willing to wager that these ballistic based chasis will see a revitalization once Clan tech is in the game. IS tech is simply too heavy to use all the slots these mechs have in any truely effective manner. The inevitable infusion of Clan tach could be just what they need to shine and reach their potential.

That having been said, MGs do need a buff to be worth using. Right now, even with the chance to crit, they suck like a cheap 'escort'. PGI staff, please, go find a place where you can burn a belt or two through an M2, then get back to us with a new-found love for the in game MG. Mister Browning made a gun damn near a hundred years ago that's still in service and can hit targets a mile away for full damage. Why do the MGs on my fusion powered future death machine suck?

[Tickdoff Tank]

Tennex, on 08 April 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

even if u get the forums to explode. pgi doesn't listen

they think they are all powerful at balancing online games from all the experience they've had in multiplayer games. as well as the work they did on duke nukkem multiplayer.

I disagree. If they did not listen the we would still be breaking our legs while running over rocks, consumables would be true P2W, and they would not be adjusting the tournament scoring systems.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deathlike, on 08 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

It may be a good idea to spread that Training Grounds MG video around.. just in case it isn't dreadfully obvious.

[JSparrowist]

MG's in their current form are beyond suck. I too would like to know what we're supposed to do with the lighter variants that focus on ballistics... perhaps harsh language will work in their stead?

...come on PGI, do something...take some suggestions from us or do your own thing *shudder* just do something about it! ..and no, the rounds fired by MG's do NOT need ECM!

[HRR Insanity]

It's easy - just raise the damage; critical hit increase was a massive waste of developer time.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I disagree. If they did not listen the we would still be breaking our legs while running over rocks, consumables would be true P2W, and they would not be adjusting the tournament scoring systems.

1. That was just terrible programming. Not really a balance decision.

2. That consumable stuff was them using our outrage to get coolant into the game. They knew if they released that P2W crap we'd go ballistic, then they could release the real version. They've done that a few times.

3. Who cares about the terrible tournaments?

Half of the weapons in this game are down right broken. LBX10, Streaks, LRMs, MG's, SPLasers, Flamers, I'll even throw in AC/10's because you really shouldn't take them.

[Davers]

The problem with AC/10s is that 3 are too heavy compared to 3 UAC/5s and 2 are too similar in weight to Gauss and AC/20's.

[Noobzorz]

Deathlike, on 08 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I threw the gauntlet down:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2206947

But seriously... I want to know the answer to the question. Is the AC2 popular enough for anything serious on a light mech?

The AC/2 is too heavy for a ballistic light mech. At 6 tons, there is no way a light can carry more than one.

[Shumabot]

If they want MGs to function as a crit seeking weapon they need to start loading up mechs with single slot ballistic hardpoints. Otherwise nothing in the game makes good use of them. 3 MG dragon? A joke. 6 MG Jagermech? Also a joke. Any version of spider? My sides just went on a cosmic journey and won't be coming back for a while.

If the developers want the gun to have a use they need to create a scenario where it's useful. "crit seeking" is neat and all, but it might as well "paint your house" since virtually no mech in the game is better off with MGs vs literally anything else.

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

The AC/2 is too heavy for a ballistic light mech. At 6 tons, there is no way a light can carry more than one.

At 6 tons it's also pretty useless on every other class of mech.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Davers, on 08 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

The problem with AC/10s is that 3 are too heavy compared to 3 UAC/5s and 2 are too similar in weight to Gauss and AC/20's.

Regardless of the reason that is 6 separate weapons and the whole line of LRM's that are flat out broke *** right now.

I'm going to throw in NARC, BAP and the Command Chair since they are in the game.

BROKE.

That is like half the things we can equip on our mech not working properly.

Should I throw Ferro in as well?

[General Taskeen]

Royalewithcheese, on 08 April 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

And here is another

[Royalewithcheese]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 April 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Should I throw Ferro in as well?

Ferro has the distinction of being useful on a handful of niche builds, unlike, say, every electronic warfare thing that isn't ECM or (arguably) TAG. Speaking of which, I need to remember to ask about NARC/BAP/etc. in the next Ask the Devs...

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Royalewithcheese, on 08 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Ferro has the distinction of being useful on a handful of niche builds, unlike, say, every electronic warfare thing that isn't ECM or (arguably) TAG. Speaking of which, I need to remember to ask about NARC/BAP/etc. in the next Ask the Devs...

Ferro was a bit of a stretch, it's not strictly broken. But damn if it isn't close.

TAG is broke due to LRM's being broke.

Man it sucks when you start breaking it down into working/not working lists.

This game feels pre-alpha.

[Royalewithcheese]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 April 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Ferro was a bit of a stretch, it's not strictly broken. But damn if it isn't close.

TAG is broke due to LRM's being broke.

Man it sucks when you start breaking it down into working/not working lists.

This game feels pre-alpha.

Is it weird that I don't think, in the aggregate, that so much gear being completely worthless reflects badly on this game? If you compare the percentage of weapons and classes that are actually useful in this game vs. (say) TF2, it actually doesn't come out looking too badly

[Evinthal]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

MG's might be more useful for taking out mechs with Reflective armor (once it comes) as it would tear it up much faster then a normal ballistic might. Also MG's are anti infantry, something this game may come out with in PvE.

Bold statement is false, if we hold to some degree of TT canon (but hey look at ECM.). Italicized statement may or may not be relevant.

Reflective armor does not take more damage from being hit by ballistic/missile attacks. It suffers normal damage from ballistic/missile attacks. The only thing that does more damage against a unit with reflective armor are physical attacks, falls or crashes through buildings (none of which are in MW:O or in the foreseeable future) or an artillery attack (Which we now have).

Yes, machine guns are anti-infantry, so that part is correct. However PGI has said they have no plans anytime in the near future to have a PVE campaign, so it is really a moot point.

Disclaimer, the following rant is not targeted at anyone, but rather at the Machine Gun implementation itself.

On paper the idea for machine guns sounds great, but in practice it utterly sucks.

They have crap damage to begin with (something like .04 not .5 or anything like that but .04)

Now then take that crap damage of .04 and multiply it by a crap critical modifier of even 3x and we get a whopping damage value of .12. Isn't that just a lovely rose smelling pile of crap.

"But I can destroy components with it!" - Right. Okay so a Gauss Rifle has 3 hit points...do you know how many machine gun shots it takes to destroy the 3 HP Gauss assuming all of those machine gun shots not only hit the mech but also critical hit the gauss rifle?

25. Yes, 25. 25 craptacular shots of lovely lovely machine gun!

Same for an ECM.

Now then, how about anything with 10 HP like pretty much every other component in the game?

try around 208 shots.

Yes, let me get within 90 meters of someone, more than likely in the middle of a group of people while trying to dodge around avoiding their fire, and put 208 rounds into the same location on them.

Meanwhile an AC10 can do that in one shot, from a much safer distance...

Yes, Machine Guns are fine as they are...

Now I want to hop into testing ground and see how long it takes to pick apart the dummy mechs with nothing but machine guns.

Edit: Did some testing. Seems like the critical multiplier might be a bit higher as in the testing grounds it has taken out weapons pretty quickly once internals were being hit, though it was still hit and miss on when it actually did happen, add that into actually having to get past the armor, AND the short range and they still are pretty blah. This was done with a founders Hunchback with a 260 STD Engine, 3 Small Lasers, 3 Machine Guns and as much ammo as I could fit on it.

Edited by Evinthal, 08 April 2013 - 07:23 PM.