1386 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

The spread is part of the problem... especially EVERY direct fire/hitscan weapon does concentrated dragon of some form... the MG spread makes no sense...

[Phoenix Branson]

Remove the cone of fire completely and increase damage to 0.2 per bullet.

Edited by Maverick01, 13 June 2013 - 07:23 PM.

[shintakie]

Maverick01, on 13 June 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Remove the cone of fire completely and increase damage to 0.2 per bullet.

2 dps MG's without spread? With the range they have now that'd be the very definition of overpowered.

1-1.2 dps MG's without spread is perfectly fine.

[Phoenix182]

I think the damage is about right now honestly, and the cone of fire is fine, but the range is too far imo. Personally I'd rather see MGs at 90m, and small lasers at 120m (small pulse staying at 90m is fine).

[Leafia Barrett]

Phoenix182, on 16 June 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

I think the damage is about right now honestly, and the cone of fire is fine, but the range is too far imo. Personally I'd rather see MGs at 90m, and small lasers at 120m (small pulse staying at 90m is fine).

So... you think it's OP at this range, even with the damage spread across the entire mech (and most of it not hitting the mech at all) at that range, or really any range short of point blank?

[Utilyan]

Phoenix182, on 16 June 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

I think the damage is about right now honestly, and the cone of fire is fine, but the range is too far imo. Personally I'd rather see MGs at 90m, and small lasers at 120m (small pulse staying at 90m is fine).

I'm curious wether you use MGs or got killed by them.

[Amsro]

Going to give my 6 MG spider a spin tomorrow after the "buff" see if I can make armor mad!!

edit * 4MG 1ER Large Laser

Edited by Amsro, 17 June 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Leafia Barrett]

Amsro, on 17 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Going to give my 6 MG spider a spin tomorrow after the "buff" see if I can make armor mad!!

edit * 4MG 1ER Large Laser

Gonna do a 4MG 1 Flamer. :3c

[General Taskeen]

I'm going to do 2MG's... until they make 2 MG's useful...

[Zerberus]

First impression (only had time for 2 matches today, 1 to test LPL and 1 for the MG/erll spider): Me likey. Will take a better look tomorrow.

[stjobe]

All right... Another MG buff, another test with my 4MG+ERLL SDR-5K.

I had the fortuitous occurrence that at the end of a match I had a legged and quite beat up Raven 3L to play with - and I couldn't kill it even though I had most of a ton of ammo left for my MGs.

The spread needs to go or the weapon needs another 1 DPS tacked on from the 1 DPS it has right now - there's just no way you can kill with it when your damage gets spread all over the target's 8 hit boxes (and internals) at 50 meters. I don't think I even managed to crit out any of the Raven's internal components...

I mean, 1 ton of MG ammo is 200 damage. 200 / 8 hitboxes = 25 damage per hitbox. A Raven's CT has 22 internal structure, so unless it's completely stripped you won't be coring that Raven.

For anything bigger than a Raven you need more than 1 ton of ammo, and consequently more than 200 seconds (3 min, 20 seconds - or 50 seconds with 4 MG) of continuous, accurate fire to core them - even with their armour stripped!

Back to the drawing board PGI, the MG is still not good enough.

Edited by stjobe, 18 June 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Deathlike]

Actually, having face a few 4MG Spider-5Ks.. the damage is about right. If we remove or at least reduce the cone, it'll finally be the weapon that it should've been from the start.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 June 2013 - 04:18 PM.

[Leafia Barrett]

Deathlike, on 18 June 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Actually, having face a few 4MG Spider-5Ks.. the damage is about right. If we remove or at least reduce the cone, it'll finally be the weapon that it should've been from the start.

The damage is right if you're literally ramming into the target as you're shooting, because there's no other way to get even remotely accurate damage. With the cone of fire, it'd take far more damage to be viable.
I wonder if PGI ever reads this topic? If any of the PGI guys are reading this: REMOVE THE CONE OF FIRE ALREADY. Making it an actual ballistics weapon instead of a laser disguised as a ballistic would be nice too.

[The Warspite]

Guys,

It's a freaking machine gun..do you honestly think you should be able to destroy a battlemech with a machine gun? It didn't work in WWII against tanks and it shouldn't work in MWO against mechs. The machine gun might be good in a game like CoD, but it should not be viable in MWO unless they add soft targets or elementals at some point.

Edited by The Warspite, 19 June 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[FupDup]

The Warspite, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Guys,

It's a freaking machine gun..do you honestly think you should be able to destroy a battlemech with a machine gun? It didn't work in WWII against tanks and it shouldn't work in MWO against mechs. The machine gun might be good in a game like CoD, but it should not be viable in MWO unless they add soft targets or elementals at some point.

You're obsessing over the mere name of the weapon while ignoring its technical specifications. Stop.

[ICEFANG13]

The Warspite, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Guys,

It's a freaking machine gun..do you honestly think you should be able to destroy a battlemech with a machine gun? It didn't work in WWII against tanks and it shouldn't work in MWO against mechs. The machine gun might be good in a game like CoD, but it should not be viable in MWO unless they add soft targets or elementals at some point.

I call it the Anti-Mech Small Weapon. ASW.

[DemonRaziel]

I am willing to admit that the current damage is fine now (though maybe 1.2 would be even fine-er), but the cone is still an issue.

First they claimed the weapon works as intended. Then they have toyed with all the wrong numbers (crits noone cares about, range). Now they have finally improved the damage to a reasonable number, but I don't understand why they still insist on keeping the cone and forcing the MG to spread its damage all over the target and miss more than necessary.

Why does the MG have to have a random factor affecting the aim while every other direct fire weapon hits where you point your cursor at the moment of firing it? Maybe PGI shoud introduce the cone to every other weapon, to make things fair?

[MacKoga]

Every weapon system should have a way to feel more powerful than any of the other weapons, in the right situation and piloting style. If that is not the case, then a weapon is a mix of being average and suboptimal in various situations, which would average out to worse than standard weapons.

MGs can't possibly be balanced without sufficient complaints that they are OP. Therefore, MGs aren't quite there yetn

Ditchthe cone or amp the damage, then see how they feel.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

I spent the majority of my matches this weekend in a quad-MG spider.
The spread is a bit annoying but I did enjoy using them. They are a bit like an SRM in the damage is spread across the target, and you need another type of weapon to cut through armor. Just keep in mind that these are a secondary weapon system to augment your damage, they are not designed to be your primary source of damage.

[Amsro]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 24 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I spent the majority of my matches this weekend in a quad-MG spider.
The spread is a bit annoying but I did enjoy using them. They are a bit like an SRM in the damage is spread across the target, and you need another type of weapon to cut through armor. Just keep in mind that these are a secondary weapon system to augment your damage, they are not designed to be your primary source of damage.

That is the problem they shouldn't be. Lights should be just as effective using small laser's, medium laser's, streaks or machine guns. in their ideal range.

Removing the cone of fire should fix this. Let the ballistic be a ballistic, enough of the charade!!