54 replies to this topic

[xenoglyph]

[Hayashi]

Suprentus, on 08 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Ok, and?...

Suppose you make the MG's DPS equivalent to a Small Laser. Then why can't a Spider inflict 6x that with MGs while a Jenner can mount 6 Small Lasers no problem? If an Atlas would kindly stand still while I pound 6 Small Lasers into its back, then why is it all of a sudden devastating if it's 6 MGs doing the same damage? Heat? Give me a break, MGs require ammo, and SLs require heat sinks. It's an equal tradeoff if you ask me.

Actually spiders can only carry up to 4 MG. So in order to have the 'OP-dom' of 6 MG we'll need a Jagermech.

Which will then do less damage than a Jenner F.

[MadPanda]

Hayashi, on 09 April 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Actually spiders can only carry up to 4 MG.

It's a sad day when the guy in charge of the game doesn't know the game.

[Jungle Rhino]

Logged in to say as the above poster mentioned that yes a Spider can only carry 4 MGs!!

Also I have no problem ripping the back out of Atlas' in my SDR-5D packing 2x ML + LL!!!
The SDR-5K can pack say 4x MG + LL so there is your target PGI - make these 2 builds roughly equivalent in usefulness because right now they are not.

Seriously there is so many 'low hanging fruit' balancing options that could vastly enhance mech building. I really cannot fathom why PGI don't knock some of the obvious ones on the head??!

[Taemien]

It is not in PGI's interest to buff Mguns, the reason why is they don't want a cheap ballistic system that functions as the ballistic versions of the small or medium laser.

Using ballistic weapons is a conscious choice. It means your sacrificing tonnage and criticals. Using lasers means you're stacking on heatsinks.

With Mguns, you're not making any sort of choice. You're slapping on a bunch of half ton weapons with a ton or two of ammo. They're place in the game is not a cheap ballistic weapon. Thats what you all are asking for, but its not going to happen. When you ask for them to be viable damaging weapons, you want them to fill a niche that is already filled by Small Lasers and Medium Lasers.

In BattleTech they are used as infantry deterrents (both in Lore and in TT rules, Lore being more important of a factor). We don't have infantry in MWO so they gave them the crit seeking abilities. Asking for anything more then that is asking for more functionality from a weapon that didn't have it to begin with.

The light weight ballistic weapon you are looking for is the AC2. If you need smaller weapons than that then you need to stick with Lasers. Medium Lasers for example have always been the bread and butter go to weapon in BattleTech.

Giving them the DPS of what the TT game has is .2 per second. They have double that in MWO, which evens out against the doubled armor. Already they are more effective due to that fact than other weapons in comparison.

For 4 tons you can have 6 Mguns do 1.2 DPS. Which is effectively a 4 ton no heat medium laser. Increasing it any further will make the weapon system boated more often which isn't the intent of the weapon. Not to mention it would exaggerate their critical damage as well.

Out of all the MechWarrior Games, I'd say Mguns are doing the most damage in MWO. You just cannot boat them here like you could in 3.

[xenoglyph]

I'll summarize the post above for those who don't want to read it all: Basically the guy says that machine guns totally need a buff and he really wonders why the devs are dragging their feet

[Jungle Rhino]

Taemien, on 09 April 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

For 4 tons you can have 6 Mguns do 1.2 DPS. Which is effectively a 4 ton no heat medium laser. Increasing it any further will make the weapon system boated more often which isn't the intent of the weapon. Not to mention it would exaggerate their critical damage as well.

Only if your Medium Laser has a range of 90m, becomes a DoT weapon on continuous beam, consumes 7 crit slots (1 of which can explode), and gives you 32 seconds of shooting before you run completely dry on ammo.

Edited by Jungle Rhino, 09 April 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Taemien, on 09 April 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

The light weight ballistic weapon you are looking for is the AC2. If you need smaller weapons than that then you need to stick with Lasers. Medium Lasers for example have always been the bread and butter go to weapon in BattleTech.

This does little for the gimp SDR with 4 ballistic mounts and only 1 laser mount. There are no effective weapon choices for that mech. The ballistic CDA is stuck with the same problem. I would like for that ***** dev to spend a week playing those two mechs with machine guns in PUG matches, and then tell us what he thinks. Clearly it would be a more productive use of his time than whatever he is doing, since the most recent patches have created more bugs than they've fixed.

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

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

I strongly disagree. It takes time for players to even notice that particular weapons are so good, that maybe they need a little nerf. We need machine guns to be buffed until they are over-powered and then nerfed until they are right. Unless you trust PGI to get it right the first time, which would be, "they are perfect right now." RiDicUlOus.

For an example, look how popular PPC and Gauss boating became after LRMs were nerfed. Those weapons were basically unseen in PUG play before.

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

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

Or if this currently not-working crit mechanic is going to be implemented in the future, then create some viable light-weight ballistic weapons for mechs like the SDR and CDA that are supposed to be gun-boats. Currently, there is no way to make those mechs viable.

Tenzek, on 08 April 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

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

or where you go to buy the elusive 6 MG Spider... their "reasoning" is an ignorant developer who spent more time typing out his long-winded response to player inquiries about MGs than he did actually using his brain to consider whether or not players are right and he is wrong.

[Jungle Rhino]

jeffsw6, on 09 April 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

For an example, look how popular PPC and Gauss boating became after LRMs were nerfed. Those weapons were basically unseen in PUG play before.

Hmmm - maybe MGs ARE where the devs want them and EVERYTHING else is OP?

lol swing the nerf bat!

[Nine-Ball]

Lets buff the MG to 10 damage, 0.1 heat, 0.0001 reload rate, 100,000 rounds per ton and has a range of 1500m. Make it 1 slot and 0.25 tons as well. Don`t forget to add in 100% critical rate against everything. Maybe add on some vampire touch so we can repair our armor while ****** others!

[xenoglyph]

Cryll Ankiseth, on 09 April 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

Lets buff the MG to 10 damage, 0.1 heat, 0.0001 reload rate, 100,000 rounds per ton and has a range of 1500m. Make it 1 slot and 0.25 tons as well. Don`t forget to add in 100% critical rate against everything. Maybe add on some vampire touch so we can repair our armor while ****** others!

Because asking for a 1.5T ammo dependent weapon to at least be sort of comparable in usefulness to a .5t energy weapon is crazy talk?

[Sifright]

Cryll Ankiseth, on 09 April 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

Lets buff the MG to 10 damage, 0.1 heat, 0.0001 reload rate, 100,000 rounds per ton and has a range of 1500m. Make it 1 slot and 0.25 tons as well. Don`t forget to add in 100% critical rate against everything. Maybe add on some vampire touch so we can repair our armor while ****** others!

I agree, at least then when it takes 6 months to a year for pgi to rebalance them the mg will have had equal time on the extreme ends of each side of the weapon power spectrum.

xenoglyph, on 09 April 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

I'll summarize the post above for those who don't want to read it all: Basically the guy says that machine guns totally need a buff and he really wonders why the devs are dragging their feet

Thanks I appreciate you translating that for me!

[PanzerFurrry]

I am not going into damage/crit debate about MGs, there are plenty good (and bad) ideas and concepts of how to make MGs viable and effective. With all due respect to developers, MGs in their current state are not viable or effective.

Let's for example see a mystical Spider 5K chassis. It has 1 energy slot in the torso and 4 ballistic slots in the arms. However, it is better to maximize the efficiency of a single energy slot then using four ballistic slots. It is better to equip something like oversized Large Pulse Laser (2 slots, 7 tons, 7.30 heat) in the torso (limited elevation) instead of using four Machine Guns (4 slots, 2 tons+ ammo, no heat) in the arms (excellent elevation). I've even seen 5K using single AC2 and still be more viable then using four Machine Guns.
We can compare this analogy on other mechs with ballistic slot and come to one conclusion - all MG equipped mechs are bad mechs and it is always better to equip other ballistic weapons (not viable on light mechs) or completely forgoe MGs and overload the energy/missile slots.

In this regard, Machine Guns do not work as intended, period.

On NGNG/IGP twitch stream, we see Garth Erlam constantly using Cicada 3M (6x energy slots, ECM). I wonder how he would fare wih Cicada 3C (4x ballistic, 1 energy slot, no ECM). Because shooting Atlas in the back from 6x Medium Pulse Laser is soooooo totally different then 4x Machine Guns.

Edited by PanzerFurrry, 09 April 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

PanzerFurrry, on 09 April 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

On NGNG twitch stream, we see Garth Erlam constantly using Cicada 3M 2A (6x energy slots, ECM).

Fixed it for you.

The 3M is 4 energy, 1 ballistic. He uses the 6 energy no ECM 2A.

But you do have a point. Ignoring ECM the 3M and 3C should be very similar mechs in terms of technique, but because MGs are worthless, the 3C probably won't even hold its own against the upcoming Flea (or at least energy only versions of it).

[Hayashi]

We have to consolidate all the threads on Machine Gun feedback because there's too many of them at present. Please continue here.

Edited by Hayashi, 09 April 2013 - 02:22 AM.