1386 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

"Machine Gun Balance Feedback"



Is how we feel after the latest MG dakkagasm was taken from us.

[OneEyed Jack]

Utilyan, on 20 August 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Theres a bias against the MG from the TT-nerd who is pushing his own rules.

Please, continue your clueless ranting. It carries so much weight when you blather complete nonsense. I can't imagine why PGI doesn't listen to you more.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 20 August 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

It's a nerf. It takes noticeably longer to kill breached 'mechs with a quad-MG Spider.

Still, I've managed to get at least one kill per drop so far, so it's not back to uselessness - although it is a step in the wrong direction.

Unusually I've also died in each drop so far. Has the hit detection been improved perchance? Or am I just more reckless as I try to test out the MGs?

Can't confirm it 100% but I think it's just the percentages catching up with you. You are now taking far longer to kill an opponent, so are exposed to enemy fire longer, and hence even with the borked registration, will take incrementally more damage. I've killed a few more lately too, because they all seem to get confused by their "victims" not dying fast and slow down to try to finish the job. I do think we are seeing Spider pilot arrogance and lack of awareness reach Raven 3L zenith levels now. And just like it was proven with most Raven pilots....most of the pilots really weren't very good, they were just riding the EZmode Metarape, like all good pro-gamers should.

Which brings us to what the real problem was, and the thing still not fixed, which was ans is the near impervious nature of a constantly moving Spider. When Hit Registration WORKED, those Spiders are a nuisance, nothing more. The MG Jagers are hardly meta-breaking nor racking the kills the AC/40 Jagers did. The problem ain't the MG, it's the blasted hit detection.

Thank you PGI!

[Utilyan]

OneEyed Jack, on 20 August 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Please, continue your clueless ranting. It carries so much weight when you blather complete nonsense. I can't imagine why PGI doesn't listen to you more.

I have been insulted!........ Prepare yourself mechwarrior for you have stirred the wrath of my MG/Flamer Cicada who's curse will be on you and the house of davion! The next time I see you my mech is going to kick your mech right on the knee!

[Ngamok]

stjobe, on 13 August 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Yes, they'll chew right through it at the exact same rate as the fearful Small Laser - only they have to be on-target 100% of the time as compared to the 25% of the Small Laser, and the have built-in spread which the Small Laser has not.

Stop trying to nerf them back into uselessness.

WooHoo:

http://cloud.steampo...03716B2660318A/

Yes, I do have 1 ER PPC on it since it's the 3C.

Edit: This was before the patch. There were so many matches I was doing this sort of damage and kills because I was litterally able to chew off legs at ludicrous speed.

Edited by Ngamok, 22 August 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Namicus]

My favorite mech was a 6 mG, 2 LPL Jager. I'd take a beating trying to get close to another mech, but once I was close in I'd strip armor with the lasers and pummel internals with the mGs. It was an absolute blast to have my victims tell me I was an ***** for using useless mGs and then have them shut up once I blew off arms and xl engines within less than 15 seconds of pummeling.

Taking that mech out now is fun factor zero because PGI decided to suck the fun out of the mGs. Why did they try to fix something that wasn't broken? I hope they return them to their fun state, otherwise I won't be using them again. Were they op? Perhaps, but I thought it was well balanced with the need to have to literally face hug to make them effective.

[Enderman]

Well, after the crit chance reduction, the only reason to use the MG is if you don't have tionnage to stick at least AC2 into the slot.

The MG has extremely low range, it has spread, very poor damage, requires to track the target 100% of the time, and has only a small crit chance. There is no way in hell anyone will use it now, again... A single med laser is superior in pretty much every aspect.

Edited by Enderman, 24 August 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Sephlock, on 20 August 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

"Machine Gun Balance Feedback"



Is how we feel after the latest MG dakkagasm was taken from us.

I shed a tear.

That video is a metaphor for all valid suggestions and backers that are being left behind and shot dead. Its unwinnable war - 63 pages of it.

I swear some Dev must have got owned by MG's in TT, MW3, and MW4. That is the only logical conclusion.

Edited by General Taskeen, 24 August 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[Sephlock]

General Taskeen, on 24 August 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I shed a tear.

That video is a metaphor for all valid suggestions and backers that are being left behind and shot dead. Its unwinnable war - 63 pages of it.

I swear some Dev must have got owned by MG's in TT, MW3, and MW4. That is the only logical conclusion.

So does that make Barnes 3PV, or would he be the phantom heat system?

[Leafia Barrett]

You know, if they don't want to remove the cone of fire because they're worried it'd be somehow overpowered, then remove the COF and change the MG's shot type to ballistic shots. I'd be fine with having to lead my targets if my bullets went where I aimed them.

[Pootis meister]

List of arguments FOR buffing MG:

• MG weighs more than GAU-8 Avenger, yet is less effective
  
• Effective range is unrealistically short
  
• AC/2 got a huge damage buff, so MG should too

List of arguments AGAINST buffing MG:

• Machine gun are anti-personnel weapons, not anti-mech*
  
• Machine gun takes no skill*
  
• Machine guns were ineffective in TT, they should be ineffective here*

Feel free to add to this list.
*People pointed out these are not valid arguments. Machine guns were actually useful in TT.

Edited by Pootis meister, 26 August 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[stjobe]

Pootis meister, on 25 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

List of arguments[...]

Please, please, please remove number 1 and 3 on your against-list. They are non-truths, perpetuated by people who for one reason or other dislike MGs intensely. It's getting very tiring having to debunk them every two or three pages of this and other threads.

[FupDup]

Pootis meister, on 25 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

List of arguments FOR buffing MG:

• MG weighs more than GAU-8 Avenger, yet is less effective
  
• Effective range is unrealistically short
  
• AC/2 got a huge damage buff, so MG should too
  
• Multiple lights and one small medium depend on MGs for using up their ballistic hardpoints
  
• Viable MGs give heavier mechs a viable "afterthought" type weapon for the ballistic class if they have spare weight (similar to the ML for energy weapons)
  
• MGs have always dealt decent damage per ton to mechs in Battletech
  
• A wider variety of viable weapons increases replayability because you and your opponents will be trying new tactics

List of arguments AGAINST buffing MG:

• Machine gun are anti-personnel weapons, not anti-mech
  
• Machine gun takes no skill
  
• Machine guns were ineffective in TT, they should be ineffective here
  
• Nothing.

Feel free to add to this list.

Fixed.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pootis meister, on 25 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

• Machine gun are anti-personnel weapons, not anti-mech
  
• 
  
• Machine guns were ineffective in TT, they should be ineffective here

care to post links to back these up? Cuz you are either horribly misinformed, or bald faced lying.

[Wintersdark]

Pootis meister, on 25 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

List of arguments AGAINST buffing MG:

• Machine gun are anti-personnel weapons, not anti-mech
  
• Machine gun takes no skill
  
• Machine guns were ineffective in TT, they should be ineffective here

Feel free to add to this list.

1) Is absurd and frankly stupid. MG's gained a bonus vs. infantry, but still did AC2 damage to mechs. Period.
2) Take no skill? What the ****? How do they take more or less skill than any other weapon?
3) Ineffective in TT? No, they were absolutely effective. Sure, explosive ammo was a risk, but it was a risk with all ammo based weapons.

This is the crux of my frustration with this whole thread. The "NO BUFFS" crowd tend to circle around, for one reason or another, "Machine Guns Should Be Useless".

In absolutely every case, the "Nerf Machine Gun" side has nothing to do with game balance, and instead are based either entirely or mostly on the poster's own imagined "What Machine Guns Are". Clearly, this is an absurd way to go about game balance.

"I feel that machine guns are purely anti-infantry weapons, and as such should do no real damage to mechs" - this statement is directly, objectively wrong based on Battletech weapon stats. Period. As such, it's entirely a subjective belief. Equally (in)valid: "I feel that lasers should be unable to burn through a significant amount of armor because they won't be able to remain on a specific pinpoint portion of armor, and as such should do little to no appreciable damage to armor unless both the firer and target are motionless".

It's maddening, because the "cons" arguments are so utterly subjective and stupid.

[AllegedHat59]

Well, I may be a noob but my favorite mech is the Spider 5K with 4 MGs and a flamer. Everything I read on the forums says that those are the most usless weapons in the game but I have had reletive success with this Mech, averageing a kill every other drop or so and getting 4 to 6 assists (not includeing spotting assists) every drop. My damage level is not very high though usualy runninig from 25 to 50. needles to say, the majority of my kills are cripled Mechs.

I think that my success with these "underwhelming" weapons comes from the fact that I understand there limitations. I realised very quickly when I started to play this game that my MGs on my Spider were not going to take down an atlas in a head to head slugg fest. My bottom line is this, I wouldnt mind if the MGs got a buff even if it was a small one. A little extra damage output is always good, but I have addapted to useing the MGs in there current state just fine.

And I also have a Spider 5D set up as an ER PPC scout-sniper, so I can always use that if I want to see fireworks!

[Pootis meister]

{Scrap}, I really stirred up the hornet's nest with my post.

Now I have to go cite my sources:
"Machine gun is anti-personnel"
But I don't have evidence that machinegun was bad in TT. Sorry.
-----
So, a 33% lie rate. Not bad.

(I'm on your side, pro-MG people.)

Edited by Pootis meister, 26 August 2013 - 11:35 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Pootis meister, on 26 August 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

{Scrap}, I really stirred up the hornet's nest with my post.

Now I have to go cite my sources:
"Machine gun is anti-personnel"
But I don't have evidence that machinegun was bad in TT. Sorry.
-----
So, a 33% lie rate. Not bad.

(I'm on your side, pro-MG people.)

Your source is a random and incorrect forum post. Citing sources for these things requires TT rules showing machine guns being somehow ineffective against mechs; not random forum posters spewing bull****.

In tabletop, machine guns existed before infantry did. They didn't have non-mech targets at all in the beginning.
In tabletop, machine guns do exactly the same damage to armor as AC/2's, just at very close ranges.
In tabletop, there's even a mech specifically designed to hunt enemy mechs.... With machine guns.
Books all vary, and are not appropriate sources of balance information for anything. "Artistic license".


There shouldn't even be a discussion about this >.<

[Amsro]

Can we just try it as the ac/2 with 90m range already!!! Skip the crit {Scrap}. Also cut the ammo count. Try this on your test server!

[monsterSIP]

still so unbalanced ballistic weapons still kill everything no matter what. They produce almost no heat and have the most damage. Their ammo should weigh more