1386 replies to this topic

[Abledime]

Hey even Richard Gatling' 1862 1876 multi-barrelled gatling gun was capable of firing 1200 rounds per min a WHOPPING 20 rounds a second

Edited by Abledime, 15 April 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[RealityCheck]

For me the rate of fire is just fine. Its the overall lack of damage that gets me.

In the meantime, were getting mighty close to 500 replies...hope this starts getting some dev attention...

RealityCheck

[stjobe]

FrostCollar, on 15 April 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Hey, who cares if it's slow if it's firing large shells?

I'd say "who cares if it's fast if it doesn't actually do something useful?"

The other Ballistic weapons have a RoF of 15-120 rpm, and they're quite useful all of them. In that context, the MG's RoF of 600 is blisteringly fast, but what good does it do?

That's right, nothing much.

[Nihtgenga]

FrostCollar, on 15 April 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Hey, who cares if it's slow if it's firing large shells?

Correct. The RoF and damage are simply numerical values to represent the behaviour in the game world. Hate to uncover the secret, but MWO is not reality.

Quote

However, given the fact that the current ammunition is closer in deadliness to frozen peas, it is an issue.

...and that will most probably not change. As it seems, there is still no feedback from anyone from the team regardless of the number of postings and threads, nothing planned despite partly quite elaborate argumentation for a buff of some kind for getting it to something worth using, not even as the most of the posting people seem to be converging to a certain range (of 0.67-1.00 DPS while retaining range and fitting ammo per ton to similar maximum damage per ton level as the other ballistics have) as community-acceptable compromise, which is absolutely, definitely, nothing else than the "constructive criticism" the devs said they wanted.

I'm outta here, until someone gets something official. 'nuff said for the buff in thread.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 15 April 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[FrostCollar]

stjobe, on 15 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

That's right, nothing much.

As I said, "frozen peas."

[stjobe]

Nihtgenga, on 15 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

If looking to the quick-and-dirty LRM nerf (which results in some streaks of 10+ matches, in which not a single LRM is fired now) in contrast to MG and Flamer discussions, that just has to fuel the impression, that balancing is done more by the day-to-day feeling in the guts of someone than a real planning.

If they had a plan for the Flamer and MG, it would be nice of them to tell us. If they don't intend to do anything with them, they're fools of the first order, because not only are these two weapons broken, the fact that they're broken also invalidate whole chassis variants.

Have a look at this:



That's my Spiders. See that 0.68 WLR on the 5K? That's because the 4 MG Spider doesn't *really* do devastating effects to the back of an Atlas (and neither would a 6 MG Spider if they buffed the MG to 1.2 DPS), and in order to even use the MGs you have to get scarily close to *real* weapons.

The 5V only had a single Medium Laser in those matches; it still did half the damage of the ERLL+4MG 5K. The ERLL+2ML 5D did almost twice the damage of the 5K, and more than three times the damage of the 5V. If I had put 2xML on the 5V instead of ML+TAG, it'd have done almost exactly as much damage as the 5K.

In short, the MGs are inconsequential, and mounting them only encourages you to use them - which, in a light 'mech, will get you killed in short order.

[LackofCertainty]

@Xelah and Deathlike


You guys both need to take the time to read both my messages and the messages I quoted, because you basically just yelled at me for agreeing with you.

@Deathlike, If you reread the bit of my message that you quoted, you'll see that I agree with you entirely. I don't want just a damage buff or just a ROF fix. I want both.

@Xelah, I was harping on the 4DPS, because the guy I quoted(esplodin) in my previous message was insisting that MG's would be balanced with 4DPS. He specifically used the example of the SL and suggested that MG's need to do equal damage in the .75 seconds that a laser is active for them to be balanced. I agree with you, Xelah, and think that's crazy. I want something around .8 DPS myself, coupled with a slight range buff, a slight spread buff, and a ROF fix.


Gotta read the whole post (including quotes) or you miss the context and it leads to misunderstandings like these.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 15 April 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

FrostCollar, on 15 April 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

As I said, "frozen peas."

I'm afraid it's not even frozen.

Edit: and I'm also afraid that we might be that "vocal minority" that PGI doesn't give a **** about.

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 15 April 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[Esplodin]

LackofCertainty, on 15 April 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

@Xelah, I was harping on the 4DPS, because the guy I quoted(esplodin) in my previous message was insisting that MG's would be balanced with 4DPS. I agree with you, Xelah, and think that's crazy. I want something around .8 DPS myself

Blah, blah, blah. FFS, look at the GD video where time has increased to a 24 DPS spider( 4DPS would be 16 DPS for the math challenged in a normal 5K, so 24 DPS is 6 MG). Against a STOCK COMMANDO. I couldn't follow through with the whole 6MG Spider vs. an Atlas joke BECAUSE I COULDN'T CARRY ENOUGH AMMO TO PULL IT OFF. 10,000 rounds for that video. Let that sink in. That is how seriously idiotic the weapon is. Yeah, the video is in a lighter vein but even then it is of LIMITED USEFULNESS.

0.8 DPS is a sick joke and not worth a Dev's time to update the XML file. Serously. The only difference is now the MG has been "ballanced" by the dev team and shuffled to the bottom of the pile.

Bad hyperbole troll is troll.

[Deathlike]

LackofCertainty, on 15 April 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

@Xelah and Deathlike


You guys both need to take the time to read both my messages and the messages I quoted, because you basically just yelled at me for agreeing with you.

@Deathlike, If you reread the bit of my message that you quoted, you'll see that I agree with you entirely. I don't want just a damage buff or just a ROF fix. I want both.

Gotta read the whole post (including quotes) or you miss the context and it leads to misunderstandings like these.

I started reading and rage.. it's almost indiscriminate at this point. I APOLOGIZE.

[Corvus Antaka]

wow ppl rly like their machine guns huh?

take a real gun?

[FupDup]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

wow ppl rly like their machine guns huh?

take a real gun?

No guns in Battletech are "real."

[Critical Fumble]

Here's the problem with, "Lets just change those variants that suffer because of MGs" - Its a temporary fix that would most likely wind up biting PGI in the *** later down the road.

Its already clear that they aren't considering the value of a hardpoint given what can be mounted there; so its likely that unless they consider that as a factor when porting in a variant, they will likely continue releasing mechs that have hardpoint issues until they recieve enough complaints that they feel the need to adjust them.

The second problem is that if they did weigh the value of hardpoints based on what you could reasonably mount there, future game additions could make them broken the other way. Like if the 1E, 4B CDA-3C (1E, 1 AC, 3 MG ~ 2.5 weapons) became 3E, 7B (3E, 1 AC, 6 MG ~ 5 weapons). It wouldn't be an issue with what we have currently, but if an effective light ballistic were ever added, the 3C could potentially have 10 weapons and would have to be balanced again.

[Terror Teddy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

wow ppl rly like their machine guns huh?

take a real gun?

Oh, and what do you suggest we squeeze in on a ballistic mech with 4/5 ballistic slots? Without crippling the build that is.

Remember that we are talking about a majority of LIGHT mechs and in cases a Cicada.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 15 April 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Terror Teddy, on 15 April 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Oh, and what do you suggest we squeeze in on a ballistic mech with 4/5 ballistic slots? Without crippling the build that is.

Remember that we are talking about a majority of LIGHT mechs and in cases a Cicada.

take 1 uac 5, or an ac 2.

you dont have to fill every slot on a mech. 1 ac 2, 3 machine guns? strip armour with ac 2, small laser, and then use machine guns to shred internals?

look, I agree that the machine gun DPS is a joke.

BUT the devs have a point - it comes without the cost of HEAT, as Bryan Ekman stated.

So lets look at it as Bryan Ekman said.

machine gun - crap useless DPS, hold gun one 1 spot forever, and super minimal range of 90m plus super minimal damage. Wieghs .5 tons. spirit of tabletop would suggest this isnt a primary weapon, though useful against tanks/infantry.

VS

gauss - 4 second reload, no heat, massive damage per shot, pinpoint accuracy to 1 node with a little travel time/flight time. longest range in the game along with erppc.

Bryans point is that since the machine gun isnt governed by heat or a recycle time it would infact be a serious problem if a 4 machine gun sipder could take said 4 guns, and 2-3 tons of ammo, and do damage inside the 90 meters.

but if we infact look at the most common spider build, the 2 med pulse/1 med laser spider 5D - well - really, why CANT the machine gun be given anywhere near comparable DPS?

IMHO the gun has way to much ammo, and is craptastic. given its 90 meter range it needs more power and utility than it has.

if damage was increased 10 fold AND ammo was cut to proper btech amount of 200 rounds, it would do 0.4 per round vs a small alser doing 3 dmg with heat and a recycle time.

maybe 5 times the damage and 400 ammo to cover double ammo we know have?

[Conraire]

FupDup, on 15 April 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

No guns in Battletech are "real."

Actually, they're all based off real world weapons. Just highly advanced and compact.

MG's are based off of this


AutoCannons are 25mm-200~mm autocannons like these

25mm Bushmaster Auto cannon mounted on the bradley. equiv to the AC2


105mm Howitzer, though the one modified for the AC130 would be your in game AC10


Do I need to go on? We do have naval mounted railguns, which are what the Gauss rifle is. Plus it's been in the news that we have laser weapons now, though fairly rudimentary. And missile packs are a duh thing.

[ICEFANG13]

Some mechs have to use more than 1 hardpoint to be useful, consider Jenner-K to Jenner-D, unless you have both missile slots full, you should use the Jenner-K.

Just like the Cicada-3C to the Cicada-3M, if you don't use 2 or more, you should be using the 3M with ECM.

Is this good?
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...342b9b3d634fa19

Not really.

[Dremster]

A real battletech machine gun you say? Let me introduce you to the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon! Without ammunition it weighs half a ton. It fires 4,200 rounds a minute. Has an effective range of 1,200 meters and can destroy a modern tank with a 1-2 second burst. It is the main cannon of the A-10 Warthog.

Edited by Dremster, 15 April 2013 - 10:28 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Prezimonto, on 15 April 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Why is an engine not critable? If you could crit engines and do significant damage and/or actually slow a mech or wreck it's engine heatsinks (and so killing it's effectiveness) MG's would be more viable in their present state.

I don't mind the idea they have as MG's being crit machines, but when crits to the center torso are essentially useless and that's the primary target in a large percentage of battles, mg's are at best extremely situational, and at worst essentially worthless.

In my opinion the engines cannot be destroyed*, because the Devs realize it would lead to very quick deaths. Right not an Atlas has 62 internal HP in his center torso. That means it takes 4 AC20 shots or 5 Gauss shots to kill it. Since the engine only has 15HP, with engine critical a single Gauss or AC20 shot would have a 42% chance of destroying the mech instantly.

Remember Mechwarrior 2? Did you ever wonder why we only had HUD armor indicator and no internal structure indicator? That's because when your armor was gone, almost every hit resulted in a critical damage and you hardly ever lasted more than a few shots.

"HTAL is a graphical bar graph that provides an accurate armor report for the front/rear of the Head, Torso, Arms, and Legs during battle."


"Your a quick kill if your rear center/right torsos are hit."
http://www.angelfire...2/mwtrnhtal.htm

*Right now, the engine can, in fact, be critically hit, and can be destroyed but it has no consequences. That's why the engine is the perfect crit-buffer for ECM

Edited by Kmieciu, 15 April 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Deathlike]

Kmieciu, on 15 April 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

*Right now, the engine can, in fact, be critically hit, and can be destroyed but it has no consequences. That's why the engine is the perfect crit-buffer for ECM

Actually.. that's not true. With their weakened state, it gets really shredded off really easily. I pilot a 3L and have piloted a D-DC and see it go away quickly once the internals are exposed.