54 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 April 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

My 4X has 2 MG and my 3C has 4.
I am fine with the way they work. Learn to use them. You will have a BLAST! I do.
you people keep this up they will remove/lower the crits and buff the dmg by not enought to make up for the lack of crit they will remove. You cant have everything and should pick your battles.

Learn how to get your ELO High. Don't use garbage dump weapons.

[ConanTheGamer]

The purpose of machine guns on the mechs were for anti-personel. They were never meant to shoot at mechs just foot soldiers.

[General Taskeen]

ConanTheGamer, on 08 April 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

The purpose of machine guns on the mechs were for anti-personel. They were never meant to shoot at mechs just foot soldiers.

Wrong. Infantry didn't exist originally when the Machine Gun was in Battle Tech. Do your homework before you type things.

[Team Leader]

General Taskeen, on 08 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Wrong. Infantry didn't exist originally when the Machine Gun was in Battle Tech. Do your homework before you type things.

Nobody does. People are being ignorant of the simple facts, especially PGI.

[Xelah]

General Taskeen, on 08 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Wrong. Infantry didn't exist originally when the Machine Gun was in Battle Tech. Do your homework before you type things.

QFT.

[FupDup]

Xelah, on 08 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

QFT.

The General is right, you know.

[ConanTheGamer]

General Taskeen, on 08 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Wrong. Infantry didn't exist originally when the Machine Gun was in Battle Tech. Do your homework before you type things.

Actually that's from the story books from the late 80's. So wrong answer.

[OneEyed Jack]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 April 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

My 4X has 2 MG and my 3C has 4.
I am fine with the way they work. Learn to use them. You will have a BLAST! I do.
you people keep this up they will remove/lower the crits and buff the dmg by not enought to make up for the lack of crit they will remove. You cant have everything and should pick your battles.

Learn to use what? They simply don't do anything. There's nothing to learn. Seriously, you could remove those MG's from both of those mechs and not even replace them with anything. Just leave the crits empty and tonnage unused and, aside from the lack of noise, you'll see no perceptible difference in the performance of the mechs. If you actually use the tonnage for anything, and I mean anything else (barring ammo for guns you don't have, or some such absurd nonsense), you will gain effectiveness.

(OK, so maybe Flamers wouldn't actually increase your effectiveness, but with their ability to blind targets they just might.)

[Roland]

At this point, I kind of get the feeling that PGI has dug in their heels and has no intention to modify the MG's... like admitting the whole "crit seeking" thing just doesn't work would be a slight on their honor or something.

I kind of expect MG's to just continue to be totally useless for the rest of this game's lifetime at this point.

What's sad is that it means that certain mechs are going to also be useless, because their chassis are designed around using MG's.

[Dan Nashe]

Question:

DIdn't they say that they planned to maybe add critical hit effects for "engines and gyros."?
That would be a game changer.

Maybe they still intend to add actuator damage too?

MGs would be a lot more tempting if it was guaranteed that there was something (like an engine) worth critting.
MGs would be a lot scarier to an atlas if I was looking at losing the equivalent of 5 DHS in under 2 seconds to an MG wielding spider, or somehow losing something due to gyro hit (no idea what, more speed?). Or if you could strip leg actuators on a raven fast.

Wouldn't be a super weapon, but it would have a much bigger niche.

Personally, my thoughts are:
(1) Finish implementing all core mechanics (not even done with this yet);THEN
(2) do a serious weapons balancing patch.

This is also why I'm not getting involved in missile damage discussions.
But this may be especially true with MGs if they might interact with possible pre-launch future mechanics.

Similarly, I think LB-X spreads need some love. But if they're thinking of implementing ammo switching (also mentioned somewhere) where you can switch between slug and LB-X, it may not need the rebalance.

"Viable MGs" is way down on my priority list of projects for the dev team.

[One Medic Army]

Quote

Herbstwind: Are we going to see critical hits to the engine/gyro (or even actuators) in the future?
And if so, could you elaborate on the effects ? (reduced heat capacity, reduced speed, falling down more easily or on hard impacts...)
A: Yes. No details to report yet.

Well, after reading through the Ask the Devs I am now forced to admit that in the future critting may be effective.

I just hope they put the above in soon so that MGs can stop being a joke.

[Tickdoff Tank]

DanNashe, on 08 April 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Question:

DIdn't they say that they planned to maybe add critical hit effects for "engines and gyros."?
That would be a game changer.

Maybe they still intend to add actuator damage too?

MGs would be a lot more tempting if it was guaranteed that there was something (like an engine) worth critting.
MGs would be a lot scarier to an atlas if I was looking at losing the equivalent of 5 DHS in under 2 seconds to an MG wielding spider, or somehow losing something due to gyro hit (no idea what, more speed?). Or if you could strip leg actuators on a raven fast.

Wouldn't be a super weapon, but it would have a much bigger niche.

Personally, my thoughts are:
(1) Finish implementing all core mechanics (not even done with this yet);THEN
(2) do a serious weapons balancing patch.

This is also why I'm not getting involved in missile damage discussions.
But this may be especially true with MGs if they might interact with possible pre-launch future mechanics.

Similarly, I think LB-X spreads need some love. But if they're thinking of implementing ammo switching (also mentioned somewhere) where you can switch between slug and LB-X, it may not need the rebalance.

"Viable MGs" is way down on my priority list of projects for the dev team.

Even with functional engine crits the MG will not be worth taking. Other weapons have the advantage of actually doing damage and not just "critting". WHile it would help the MGs, it would not (IMO) make enough of a difference, mainly because it would not be for MGs only. Engine crits will be possible with all weapons, not just MGs.

The MGs need a damage buff, there is no way to avoid it. Either buff their damage or remove them from the game.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

OneEyed Jack, on 08 April 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Learn to use what? They simply don't do anything.

Oh YES they do

OneEyed Jack, on 08 April 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

There's nothing to learn. Seriously, you could remove those MG's from both of those mechs and not even replace them with anything. Just leave the crits empty and tonnage unused and, aside from the lack of noise, you'll see no perceptible difference in the performance of the mechs.

so wrong... so so so wrong.

OneEyed Jack, on 08 April 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

If you actually use the tonnage for anything, and I mean anything else (barring ammo for guns you don't have, or some such absurd nonsense), you will gain effectiveness.

now your just talking angry talk and it makes no since. MG are effective. VERY much so.

OneEyed Jack, on 08 April 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

(OK, so maybe Flamers wouldn't actually increase your effectiveness, but with their ability to blind targets they just might.)

we are talking about MG. I dont use flamers.


frankly its so sooooo much fun when someone like you thinks my 4x or 3C is an easy target, just to take out everything that makes your mech run before killing you. But not be4 I play with you like a cat plays with a dieing mouse. When I have had my fun I will stop look you in the eyes and blow your mech up and all you can do is watch while you burn.

Because you did not take the time to have a good time with an awesome weapon mechanic.

General Taskeen, on 08 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Wrong. Infantry didn't exist originally when the Machine Gun was in Battle Tech. Do your homework before you type things.

are you trying to tell us MG were invented before infantry? The entire history of warfare would disagree with you.


__________________________


If ANYthing gets changed with mg it should have longer range a .50 cal in 2013 can penatrate armor up to a mile+.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 08 April 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[xenoglyph]

[IIIuminaughty]

MGs are so OP that you have to give a explanation to why they are not OP. Sounds like MGs are very OP

[xenoglyph]

Who says buffed MGs are required to have zero heat anyways? They make changes all the time for balance purposes and completely ignore other parts of battletech, a buffed MG that produces some heat sounds good to me.

[Tenzek]

I put together a jenner with 6 SL on smurfy. I gave it the max engine and had room for 4 heat sinks in total. This gave me a heat efficiency of 61%, and 6 DPS.

It told me I had 3.66 infinitely sustained DPS, but it would take 38 seconds of constant firing to actually overheat. This means it's effectively always going to be 6 DPS potential, as it's about impossible to need to fire for 38 seconds non stop. You could of course easily core that atlas from behind before heat became a factor. 38x6 = 228 damage delivered before heat stops you.

Of course, if we could make the same loadout with MGs, we could take 5 tons of ammo. This is because the DHS take up so much space, without them I can afford FF armor for an extra ton of ammo.

This means a max possible DPS of 2.4, but heat would never stop you.

I don't see how their reasoning survives basic arithmetic.

[Deathlike]

Math? What is this newfangled thing?

[Terror Teddy]

Funnily enoigh I DID believe this was a beta and we werr supposed to test things and complain about it.

Perhaps we should all start sending support tickets in regard to this obvious buggy beta version of the mg that needs to be looked at since the one responsible for the mg is to **** about getting the point that the weapon in its current status is next to useless and is a lisbility to light ballistic mechs.

[Lydialeera]

Here's what I would like to see from machine guns: Bump the damage just a little to make them closer to TT when compared to other weapons.

In TT a machine gun does 2 damage every 10 seconds. Same as an AC/2, but with much, much shorter range and no heat.
For comparison a small laser does 3 damage in that same time period.

Right now in MWO a small laser does 3 damage every 3 seconds (.75 beam duration, 2.25 second cooldown according to in-game mechlab). A Machine gun fires 10x a second for .04 damage per shot, so.... 1.2 damage in that same 3 second window.
Pretty close, actually. What if we just bump it up to 2 damage per 3 seconds? Which would come out to.... .0666 repeating. Call it .07 damage per round for 2.1 damage/3 second 'cycle.'

Now we have a weapon that does a bit less damage than a small laser to compensate for no heat generation, can keep the crit bonuses, but to get that damage you have to hold your aim on the target for the full 3 seconds, instead of .75 for the small laser.

I personally wouldn't mind a bump to 3 damage/3 seconds (0.1 damage per bullet), again keeping in mind having to hold the target for the full time while the small laser user (if there were any ) can spend 3/4 of that time maneuvering and twisting to keep damage off one section. But I'd accept the 2 damage from above.

This ended up way longer than I intended, sorry.