14 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

So we all know the Devs have spoken, and MGs are Working As Intended. And we mere mortals are simply not gifted enough to use them as the crit seeking smiting from God that the Devs believe them to be.

Thing is, an AMS is literally a MG with a specialized radar on it. Why aren't AMS a ballistic, if TAG is considered an Energy Weapon, and NARC a Missile? Since all are specialty item more akin to the AMS, would it not make sense they all have their own specialty hardpoint, ala AMS, BAP & ECM? And as long as MGs are utterly useless as offensive standalone weapons, why clutter weapon spots with them?

For one, it sure would take care of those pesky GaussCats, or annoying Raven 4X with a gauss, that should realistically tip over on their side for mounting HALF THEIR WEIGHT ON ONE ARM.

A little consistency, please PGI.

but, basically, if MGs ARE WAI, we should never need to swap them for autocannons and such, so why not take away the option? I'm sure all of us would dearly enjoy driving our WAI machinegun warriors.

And yes, this is a nonsense argument meant to be about as logical as PGIs carefully worded response to the efficacy of MGs.

TLDR
No nonsense version? PGI, machine guns suck and serve zero purpose aside from sounding cool. I can core out and crit a Mech with my bevy of real weapons far faster than these crits come on their magic rays of sunshine. Please, someone go to training grounds with a 6mg jager, park 50 meters from the commando, aim fot its srm stack, and hold down the mgs till the mech blows up. If you can frap or afterburner it, more the better. YouTube speaks louder than QQ.

[Victor Morson]

I've been suggesting the concept of Machine Gun Arrays. While the TT rules showed up in 3068, MGs were often described as being in arrays in the fluff, fiction, and TROs from the 3025s onward.

The concept is simple: Instead of dropping an MG into the ballistic slot, you'd drop a MG Array in instead. Then you can load the Array with up to, say, 3 MGs (or whatever is deemed balanced), like you'd load an engine with DHS.

This way 1 ballistic slot could equal multiple MGs, without altering the balance of the 'mech. Furthermore MGs get a lot more attractive when you can have 6 MGs and only a ton or two of ammo running as your backup guns.

I'm really convinced this would help turn them around a lot, on top of some mild tweaking.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this solution would also allow you to have a large number of machine guns on the 'mech without murdering your in-game UI as well; you could simply fire the entire array as one weapon on the group.

EDIT 2: If anyone is worried about crit space (I'd almost be cool with giving MGs a non-canon buff on this, myself) you could simply increase the slots occupied by the Array based on the number of MGs it has, or simply start it at slots equal to maximum MGs it can support. This was it would remain BattleTech compatible.

Edited by Victor Morson, 08 April 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeah. They were one of those things Microsoft forced on Mechwarrior I think, but actually make a LOT of sense, and its stupid to make them out to be high tech. AA guns were based off the similar premise. And slapping 4 MA Deuce .50s on a pintle ain't rocket science. And the only time I specifically saw.mech MGs I'd in the blood of kerensky series, they were basically 50 BMGs which is why they are effective vs armor.

Correction.... Are SUPPOSED to be.

[Utilyan]

A array will make the weapon fire as one weapon. The easy loop-hole is just call it something new like machine gun "rack" or something. Then under equipment you buy Machinegun X2 , machinegun X4, machinegun X5, ect. and all it would be is just multiple machine guns not an array at all.

So a machinegun X4 is simply, simply just 4 machine guns. weighs 2 tons....takes 4 crits.

An array would be differ in that it would take up ONE crit slot, in mechwarrior 4 for example, a IS MG array was 3 machine guns it weighs half a ton, the ammo that comes with it was a ton. So we are not asking for arrays at all(although it would be nice).

[skullman86]

I've brought this up a few times. Making certain hardpoints on mechs into specialty slots would definitely kill ballistic cats, and the 3L would take a hit if Narc was added to the list. Actually, if the hardpoints stay the same and PGI makes the Heavy Metal's loadout features standard for all mechs (http://imgur.com/a/22u9p), the 3L (among others) might get a little stronger. Instead of firing 1 missile at a time through the Narc launcher, we may be able to replace it with a real rack sometime in the near future.

I'm kind of for the addition of more specialty slots because it would destroy some of the abusive builds out there, but I'm not sure if the good out-ways the bad. You will kill ballistic K2's and nerf the 3L, but you will also put the final nail in the coffin for a handful of mechs who were pretty useless without their troll builds.

Edited by skullman86, 08 April 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Skullman

Or possibly remove a lot of the minmaxing that required troll builds to counter, and preserve some of the actual uniqueness of each build instead of the cookie cutter crap counted as the norm today.

[skullman86]

Yeah, it would be nice to see the focus shifted back to more balanced or semi-stock builds, but everyone seems to enjoy having a ****-ton of firepower, so I don't think it'll happen.

I know a lot of people hated it, but from my personal experience, R&R was the core of this game's balance. Once it was removed there was no reason to use lower end tech anymore and that has lead us to where we are right now. We have a bunch of equipment that was bad back in the day because other weapons were a higher priority for balance, and now that PGI finally has a chance to work on said equipment, it turns out that the changes being made are not enough for the current metagame.

MGs were **** when R&R was around, but at least mechs that ran them stock were going up against custom builds that were somewhat modest. Now you are going up against double AC/20s, triple gauss, and quad/quint/hex PPCs etc. The playing field has changed, but the lower end gear looks like it's being balanced around a build from ~6 months ago.

[Bishop Steiner]

skullman86, on 08 April 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Yeah, it would be nice to see the focus shifted back to more balanced or semi-stock builds, but everyone seems to enjoy having a ****-ton of firepower, so I don't think it'll happen.

I know a lot of people hated it, but from my personal experience, R&R was the core of this game's balance. Once it was removed there was no reason to use lower end tech anymore and that has lead us to where we are right now. We have a bunch of equipment that was bad back in the day because other weapons were a higher priority for balance, and now that PGI finally has a chance to work on said equipment, it turns out that the changes being made are not enough for the current metagame.

MGs were **** when R&R was around, but at least mechs that ran them stock were going up against custom builds that were somewhat modest. Now you are going up against double AC/20s, triple gauss, and quad/quint/hex PPCs etc. The playing field has changed, but the lower end gear looks like it's being balanced around a build from ~6 months ago.

now now...lets not use profanity like R&R on here.. this is a family post!

But in all seriousness... for how horrible R&R supposedly was (and no denying people exploited that 75% mechanic, which I believe we told PGI people would do from the start), as someone who played the whole summer with it, I loved it. Funnily enough, even using my Non-Founders account, sans Premium, I never lost money in the game. Even when XL Engines were crazy expensive to fix.

What I did see was a lot less cheese (especially once they nerfed engine limits), and Stock Mechs being a lot more competitive. Only People I saw losing money ran Max Teched XL engined LRM or Streak Boats. Which meant in smart units, you took turns who was the LRM Support Mech each Match. And I only ran XLs in Mechs that were supposed to be over 100 kph. Pretty much everything else ran a standard. I would sneak an XL occasionally in an 8v8, and sometimes it game me that unexpected edge... sometimes, it gave me one heck of a repair bill.

But of course, all the ProGamers hated it, because it meant that running maxxed out minmax mech specials was not really a good idea.

[IceGryphon]

I said this ages ago... let it go.......
MG's have always been and always will be party sparklers.

[Bishop Steiner]

at least Sparklers had the potential to be a fire hazard... thats more than MGs accomplish

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It would be easier to simply improve Machine Guns so they could match the performance of Small Lasers. I think they should remain as a Ballistic slotted weapon. And lore-wise, MG Arrays come around in 3068.



However, the two systems that I think could benefit from having their own unique Hardpoint are TAG and NARC.

For example, if TAG has its own unique hardpoint, they could be retroactively added to different Mechs such as the CPLT-A1, hopefully with little trouble.

And I was wondering, has anyone used or seen others use NARC? I think I've seen them on Trial Mechs when those certain Mechs are available. I think I've only seen NARC on one or two custom Mechs, but that's about it from my memory.

And then looking at the RVN-3L specifically, if the single tube is exclusive to NARC, and if the Torso Hardpoint is TAG exclusive, would it still be considered as annoying as they currently are with two SSRM2 and 3 ML?

[Shumabot]

Victor Morson, on 08 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

I've been suggesting the concept of Machine Gun Arrays. While the TT rules showed up in 3068, MGs were often described as being in arrays in the fluff, fiction, and TROs from the 3025s onward.

The concept is simple: Instead of dropping an MG into the ballistic slot, you'd drop a MG Array in instead. Then you can load the Array with up to, say, 3 MGs (or whatever is deemed balanced), like you'd load an engine with DHS.

This way 1 ballistic slot could equal multiple MGs, without altering the balance of the 'mech. Furthermore MGs get a lot more attractive when you can have 6 MGs and only a ton or two of ammo running as your backup guns.

I'm really convinced this would help turn them around a lot, on top of some mild tweaking.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this solution would also allow you to have a large number of machine guns on the 'mech without murdering your in-game UI as well; you could simply fire the entire array as one weapon on the group.

EDIT 2: If anyone is worried about crit space (I'd almost be cool with giving MGs a non-canon buff on this, myself) you could simply increase the slots occupied by the Array based on the number of MGs it has, or simply start it at slots equal to maximum MGs it can support. This was it would remain BattleTech compatible.

3 machine guns at 2.5 tons (1 for ammo) isn't really better together than separate. Sure, a jager could mount 18 of them, but that would still be about the damage of a 6 small laser jenner. A mech that's 30 tons lighter.

[Zylo]

Praetor Shepard, on 08 April 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

And then looking at the RVN-3L specifically, if the single tube is exclusive to NARC, and if the Torso Hardpoint is TAG exclusive, would it still be considered as annoying as they currently are with two SSRM2 and 3 ML?

These changes could be made and some light pilots would still complain about the Raven 3L while ignoring the Commando 2D with 3x SSRM2's + 1 energy weapon.

[Victor Morson]

Shumabot, on 08 April 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

3 machine guns at 2.5 tons (1 for ammo) isn't really better together than separate. Sure, a jager could mount 18 of them, but that would still be about the damage of a 6 small laser jenner. A mech that's 30 tons lighter.

For what it's worth I absolutely endorse a damage change on top of this. It should be worth it's weight of firepower in small lasers at the least. (Less DPS/Range, but no heat.)

EDIT: I would also be OK bending the canon rules on MGs and upping their range dramatically. Living Legends upped their range so much that they were a backup anti-air weapon, but nobody was complaining about MGs getting a buff, not really.

Edited by Victor Morson, 08 April 2013 - 08:45 PM.

[Hayashi]

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