1386 replies to this topic

[Terror Teddy]

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

pathetic. It may be that they think that because its 1/12^th the weight of an AC/2, it should only be 1/12^th as effective. The only persuasive argument at that point is that it adversely effects the game.

And here's where that comparison fails.

"Why stop there" is my question then.

The Small Laser is 1/14 the weight of the ER PPC but does 1/3 the DPS
The MG is 1/12 the AC/2 weight but does 1/10 the DPS

Oddly enought no-one complains that the SL is OP...

Yes, one of them has heat but that one benefits from double heatsinks and you can essentially regenerate ammo and replace MG ammo with heatsinks to gain MORE ammo regen.

The damage output combined with the low damage per tonne and the time it takes to deliver the damage per tonne is nothing short of PATHETIC and becomes worse when you realize that no bullet flies straight forward but spread all over an enemy.

[Terror Teddy]

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

They don't HAVE to make the MG a passable damage weapon; but if they want to make their hardpoint system fair, they need to either make the MG reasonable, add in a decent light ballistic, or adjust the hardpoint count on mechs to reflect the reduced value of multiple ballistic hardpoints on some variants.

A good summary of the problem.

Not to mention that a primarily MG equipped light mech will loose 9/10 times against a similar mech with energy weapons.

[Terror Teddy]

Merchant, on 11 April 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

I see no reason for buffing the MG other than personal bias.
This is not MW3 and clearly MW3 did the MG wrong.

I can tell from your post:
-That you never play in light ballistic mechs
-That you never face other light mechs while using a ballistic light mech
-IF you do use a LBM you gimp the build to get a larger energy weapon or heavier ballistic weapon squeezed in
-Have never compared the sources they got the weapon from to what they did with them
-See nothing wrong with the SL doing 1/3 the ERPPC DPS at 1/14 the weight...Compare that to the MG doing 1/10 DPS at 1/12 the weight of the AC/2
-Believe that a 500 kilogram weapon is a .50 caliber machinegun

Edited by Terror Teddy, 11 April 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Deathlike]

Guys.. you have to consider that the 1 ton used for the ammo is not entirely fair to consider the MG+ammo as 1.5 tons.. when you don't actually add another ton of ammo when you add the 2nd MG into the equation.

"At best", you would consider the 1 ton of ammo like 1 HS when you stuff in more SL to a Jenner (unless, a 6 SL Jenner doesn't need another DHS).

Strictly though.. the MG probably does less damage than collision and fall damage.. which is enough to mock its existence.

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

They don't HAVE to make the MG a passable damage weapon; but if they want to make their hardpoint system fair, they need to either make the MG reasonable, add in a decent light ballistic, or adjust the hardpoint count on mechs to reflect the reduced value of multiple ballistic hardpoints on some variants.

You're correct. You could argue that similar point to the Atlas-K, where the current missile options don't favor its build at the moment. If say the Thunderbolt came into existence, it wouldn't be a big deal to just have that solo missile slot on that mech.

However, the pace they are going now will inevitably leave the Flea to be DOA, which is why the minimum of doubling MG damage is needed... right now.. it genuinely doesn't hurt a Flea...

Edited by Deathlike, 11 April 2013 - 09:25 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

Terror Teddy, on 11 April 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

A good summary of the problem.

Not to mention that a primarily MG equipped light mech will loose 9/10 times against a similar mech with energy weapons.

9/10, what are you talking about? Oh, BSOD/DC, OK.

Not just light mechs suffer, though. Anything with stacked ballistics will have issues because of the combination of MGs and the "balanced" hardpoint system. Like the Dragon with 3B in one arm, what in the name of sweet Bushido do you do with that? Trippe AC/2 doesn't look like a good idea, and MGs are a joke, maybe dual AC/5 if you don't mind being "down" a weapon.

And then there's the upcoming Blackjack. I want to use it, but I don't think I hate myself that much.

[Deathlike]

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

And then there's the upcoming Blackjack. I want to use it, but I don't think I hate myself that much.

I thought there was simply just one ballistic variant? You could probably put together something better than a Cic-3M would...

[Terror Teddy]

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

9/10, what are you talking about? Oh, BSOD/DC, OK.

Not just light mechs suffer, though. Anything with stacked ballistics will have issues because of the combination of MGs and the "balanced" hardpoint system. Like the Dragon with 3B in one arm, what in the name of sweet Bushido do you do with that? Trippe AC/2 doesn't look like a good idea, and MGs are a joke, maybe dual AC/5 if you don't mind being "down" a weapon.

Heavier mechs have the luxury to actually "test" the crit-assistant ability of MG sinc they have te tonnage.

[Conraire]

My take on the balance issue with Machine guns. In TT rules, they did 2 dmg per 10 second round. Note, this is the same damage, that the AC2 does in TT. Key difference between the two, being the range difference. AC2 were very long range weapons, and Machine guns were very close range, but light.



In Canon TT, the MG received 200 shots of ammo per ton. In MWO, the MG gets 2000 rounds of ammo per ton. This can be translated to make sense. For example, that could be directly translated to a different mechanic, say how SRM ammo works. Where the MG could fire in a set burst, and then go through a cool down time, much like other projectile weapons. Firing say 10-50 round rapid fire bursts, that did 1-2 dmg per burst. Then give them a similar cool down to the AC-2. Doing this, the dmg could be increased per use, to a useful level, while still giving them the higher crit rate due to the number of rounds fired per burst, without unbalancing other weapons. Plus it would give the weapon its canon stats.

One of the biggest issues with MG's in this game is player and dev perception of what they are in Battletech and Mechwarrior lore. When most people think MG's they're thinking M249SAW, M240B, or the M2 Browning (ma deuce) at the most. The problem is, that BattleTech MG's aren't that type of Machine gun. They're actually 20mm Gatling Auto cannons. We actually have said weapons in the real world. They're the primary gun on the f-22 raptor, and most ac130 spectre gunships mounted 2-4 of them on one side depending on the loadout, prior to year 2000.

The real world equivalent weapon is the m61a1/GAU-4

Those fire either API, HEI, or SAPHEI(semi armor piercing High explosive incendiary). More or less they penetrate so far into armor, and then explode. This would obviously have the effect of driving a hole through armor with enough shots. One could assume, that by the 31st century pretty much all MG ammo is going to be APHEI, in fact it says that auto cannon ammo indeed is. Plus these things have a rate of fire in the 6000 RPM. But in general use, they fire in short bursts to conserve ammo.

[Kmieciu]

Mechwarrior 3 was full of exploitable builds, since it didn't have a hardpoint system. 20 machineguns were a beast up close, but people took 15 ERSL because they were even better. But against an enemy boating ERLL they did not even have a chance of closing the distance.

In MWO we have a hardpoint system that prevents massive boating = 9 energy weapons and 6 ballistic weapons per mech is the limit right now. Think about it this way: a machinegun should be buffed to such a level, that a Jagermech with 6xMG + 2xERPPC would have a chance against 2xAC20 Jagermech.

On the other hand players only boat efficient weapons. Even if I had the option to put 50 machineguns on an Atlas today, I would not use this build. Because each end every other weapon is more efficient than a machinegun ! If you boat lots of inefficient weapons, you end up with one big inefficient weapon.

Conraire, on 11 April 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

In Canon TT, the MG received 200 shots of ammo per ton. In MWO, the MG gets 2000 rounds of ammo per ton. This can be translated to make sense. For example, that could be directly translated to a different mechanic, say how SRM ammo works. Where the MG could fire in a set burst, and then go through a cool down time, much like other projectile weapons. Firing say 10-50 round rapid fire bursts, that did 1-2 dmg per burst. Then give them a similar cool down to the AC-2. Doing this, the dmg could be increased per use, to a useful level, while still giving them the higher crit rate due to the number of rounds fired per burst, without unbalancing other weapons. Plus it would give the weapon its canon stats.

That would make the machinegun work like a small laser with different sound and visuals. Machineguns and Flames are the only "constant beam" weapons, and IMHO should stay unique.

The Devs stated that they won't increase the damage, but as we all remember they were against coolant flushes and Third Person Perspective, too. Maybe we should get a Hero 6xMG Spider* after all, because then the machineguns will magically be "hotfixed" into being useful. Right now, if you don't like using machineguns, put down some $$$ for MC and buy Pilot Skills. Money talks.

*If I were a lazy Dev, I would design a hero Spider with 6 energy hardpoints instead of trying to balance machine guns. I would get money from hero mechs, and from XP->GXP conversion.

Edited by Kmieciu, 12 April 2013 - 12:36 AM.

[MadPanda]

Can't buff MG's cuz of this:

[Xelah]

MadPanda, on 12 April 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Can't buff MG's cuz of this:

Mind if I shrink that down and use it for my sig?

[Dremster]

The devs apparently want the machine gun to have utility beyond just damage. Because of this there are several mechs that either flat out underperform the other variants. Or have excess ballistic hardpoints. Putting another heatsink or another 1.5 tons of armor is always better than mounting a machine gun.
I say why can't the MG deal damage and be super effective vs internals? The PPC has extra functionality beyond its primary design.

It was stated that you like to have a community that is divisive about things. Well just about everyone agrees the machine gun is a waste of tonnage and hardpoints. I for one would really appreciate it if you could just admit your vision for the machine gun might be flawed, and go back to the drawing board.

[Wolfyop]

The crit seeking its not useful because only work on internals and a mech whitout armor its almost dead and everyone its going to destroy CT(or headshot) to kill fast and there its no critseeking use in CT. This make the critseeking MG useless. The only internal that resist enough are the CTs of assault like atlas.

[Terror Teddy]

Dremster, on 12 April 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:

I say why can't the MG deal damage and be super effective vs internals? The PPC has extra functionality beyond its primary design.

Good point - It's not like any of us wants the MG's to be OP. But we need a viable light ballistic weapon for, at least, self defense against other light mechs with similar damage.

[Dremster]

Terror Teddy, on 12 April 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Good point - It's not like any of us wants the MG's to be OP. But we need a viable light ballistic weapon for, at least, self defense against other light mechs with similar damage.

To take the point a step further: look at the LBX AC/10. It does increased damage vs internals, just like the MG. It does damage in a spread pattern, just like the MG. It does its full canon damage, the machine gun does not...
If the LBX AC/10 doesn't sacrifice its damage for utility, then why should the machine gun?

Not to mention I don't see many threads about how OP the LBX is...

Edited by Dremster, 12 April 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[Xelah]

Dremster, on 12 April 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

Not to mention I don't see many threads about how OP the LBX is...

If it means that much to you, I can start one after we get MG's taken care of.

[Dremster]

Xelah, on 12 April 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

If it means that much to you, I can start one after we get MG's taken care of.

For great justice! Don't forget to complain that LBX are not shotguns

[SweetWarmIce]

The only worthwhile use I get out of machine guns is completely disarming Atlases in 3 seconds with a 4 MG 5K Spider. The only reason that's possible is because other Mechs destroy the armour but then the Atlas is dead anyway.

While the critical modifier to MGs has the potential to be dangerous. It's not dangerous until engine, gyro, life-support and actuators can be crit and have an effect. Even then it'd better to dedicate that tonnage elsewhere to better support the Mech or other weapons that can actually do damage.

Machine guns need to have reasonable damage potential even on armour.

In TT machine guns do 2 damage per 10 second turn and shred armour off BattleMechs, so TT supports us here. In MWO a machine gun takes 5 seconds to do 2 damage. Compare the small laser which does 3 damage in less then 3 seconds.

A few ideas I have.

1. Changing machine guns to follow the trend set by other ballistics:

Ballistic weapons in general get 150 damage per tonne of ammo. In the current implementation MGs only get 80 damage per tonne. This means either 3750 ammo per tonne (150/0.04 = 3750) or keeping the current ammo per tonne at 2000 but with 0.075 per bullet (150/2000). Upping the damage per tonne also fits the trend of smaller calibre ballistics taking more time to do their damage. AC/2 takes 37.5 seconds for 150 (75*0.5) AC/20 takes 28 seconds for 140 (7*4).

2. Taking the longer cool downs on direct fire weapons and applying them to machine guns:

To get 2 damage in 4 seconds. 2/4 = 0.5 DPS 0.5/10 = 0.05 per bullet
To get 2 damage in 3 seconds. 2/3 = 0.67 DPS 0.67/10 = 0.067 bullet

3. Combine both ideas:

2 damage in 4 seconds equals 2238.9 ammo per tonne (150/0.067) 2 damage in 3 seconds equals 3000 ammo per tonne (150/0.05). Could round 2238.9 down to 2200 or up to 2250.

I do realise that machine guns being no heat and on-demand puts them in a tricky balance position. Whilst they look scary on paper in practise they have spread and Mechs are constantly moving and torso twisting. The damage takes time to put out, is not pin point and is close range only. Even 6 MGs requires a full 50 seconds of shooting per tonne of ammo. Not to mention ammo explosions.

What about stacking Mechs with machine guns? Well the Jenner and Commando can't use ballistics. Cicadas will be easy to hit with full HSR. Spiders are already fragile and more ammo = less speed or armour. The Flea will have the same issues as the Spider. The other stand out is the Jagermech JM6-DD. 6 machine guns right now are 2.4 DPS. Using the above ideas this would either be 3 DPS (0.05) 4.02 DPS (0.067) or 4.5 DPS (0.075). You could fit a Standard 315, Endo-Steel, DHS, max armour and 14 tonnes of ammo. Nasty up close but anyone could out-run or out-gun it. Fighting 8 or 12 you ask? They're basically bowling pins.

TL/DR:

The crit seeking purpose of machine guns is redundant right now.

Machine guns need to have reasonable damage potential even on armour.

Either buff damage per bullet or ammo per tonne to equal 150 damage per tonne of ammo.
And/or make the MG do it's TT damage of 2 within 3 or 4 seconds.

Boating MGs could be dangerous but short range, damage over time nature, spread and ammo requirement mitigate the threat.

Edited by SweetWarmIce, 12 April 2013 - 02:33 AM.

[MadPanda]

Xelah, on 12 April 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

Mind if I shrink that down and use it for my sig?

Go for it

[Xelah]

Thanks. Viva la revolution!