1386 replies to this topic

[Critical Fumble]

OK, actually to the current subject now that we know that MGs will be buffed in some capacity: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2281857


We know they're "reviewing" a "range, RoF, and spread, slight damage adjustment" to the MG. There's not a reasonable way to give a verdict yet, but theoretically.

If the end result was a pinpoint weapon with 100 points of potential damage per ton of ammo, how much ammo would you need on a quad MG Spider to be competitive?

Spoiler

I restrained myself from asking, "How much ammo would you need to make a hexa-MG Spider DEVISTATING?!"
Oh, wait, not I didn't :L

[Tickdoff Tank]

MG base range is fine. The 200m max range is weird, it should be 270m (90m base+ 180m, like all other ACs), but I do not think it is a problem to keep the range capped at 200m, simply because the low base damage of an MG will make additional range a waste anyway.

ROF and damage per bullet are what we need to adjust. I have been arguing for base damage of 0.12 per bullet at the current ROF of 10 shots per second, for a total DPS of 1.2. I don't care *how* we get there, as long as we do. Triple the ROF to 30 rounds per second and leave the damage per bullet the same if you want. Increase damage to .24 per round and let it fire 5 rounds per second instead, as long as we are doing approximately 1.2 damage in 1 second I think the MG will be "useful", but still not "good"

[Lucian Nostra]

Just pathetic, it takes almost a full 17 seconds for 6 MGs to take the head off a Catapult (I was within 30 meters so no shots would stray). I went into the testing grounds to try it out. It took me around 27 seconds to kill the commando through his torso (remember it's not uparmored)

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 26 April 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Lucian Nostra, on 26 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Just pathetic, it takes almost a full 17 seconds for 6 MGs to take the head off a Catapult (I was within 30 meters so no shots would stray). I went into the testing grounds to try it out. It took me around 27 seconds to kill the commando through his torso (remember it's not uparmored)

That is why I feel that a triple damage (or ROF) buff would not be a major problem for MGs. 6 MGs would need slightly less than 6 seconds to do the same damage, assuming that you have a stationary target, a stable platform from which to fire, and no change in range (which does not happen often in the live game)

[TOGSolid]

Quote

This language renders your entire post irrelevant. This is the language of politics, not gamers of any kind. In all the gaming I have done be it TT, RPG, computer, etc., people who communicate this way tend to find themselves pushed out of a lot of gaming groups. This isn't politics and I am not debating with someone who can only use politics in their language since it renders anything you say irrelevant. If you want politics, there are plenty of places to find it.

Really, you didn't even get my religion right anyway with all the Bible references. Complete failure.

Tickdoff Tank, on 26 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

That is why I feel that a triple damage (or ROF) buff would not be a major problem for MGs. 6 MGs would need slightly less than 6 seconds to do the same damage, assuming that you have a stationary target, a stable platform from which to fire, and no change in range (which does not happen often in the live game)

If MGs did 2.5 times their current DPS they would have the unstoppable, terrifying fury of a small laser.
I'd say that's about right.

Edited by TOGSolid, 26 April 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Barghest Whelp]

TOGSolid, on 26 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

If MGs did 2.5 times their current DPS they would have the unstoppable, terrifying fury of a small laser.
I'd say that's about right.

Yes, apart from the fact that the small laser doesn't spread and doesn't need ammo. To be honest, the only way I can see the machine gun becoming useful is if it has more damage potential than a small laser. That is, if you keep the spread.

Remove the spread, then perhaps it would be prudent to keep it slightly below or level with the small laser. But hey, let's face it, nobody in their right mind is worried about MG's becoming the ultimate weapon of doom right?

Well, at least I'm not. I'm more worried that I'll never find any reason what so ever to actually buy and fit one of these things to any of my mechs.

Edit: oh, and by the way, the total damage per ton of ammo also needs some serious work. A ton is a ton is a ton of ammo. No matter which weapon it's for.

Edited by Barghest Whelp, 26 April 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Lord of All]

Barghest Whelp, on 26 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

...Edit: oh, and by the way, the total damage per ton of ammo also needs some serious work. A ton is a ton is a ton of ammo. No matter which weapon it's for.

This is so far from correct I have no idea where to start.

[Barghest Whelp]

Lord of All, on 26 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

This is so far from correct I have no idea where to start.

Sorry? Every other ammo consuming weapon in the game gets more damage per ton than machine gun ammo. Care to explain to me why on earth this should not apply to the machine gun? Is there a particular reason why this poor little abused gun should get yet another handicap, on top of all the others?

In fact, I don't see any logical reason for the machine gun not to be equal to all the other weapons in the game. Apart from not wanting people to use them that is, but then why on earth can't they just remove it?

And if they're so bloody desparate to have a critseeking weapon that doesn't damage armour, then just add rifles for christ sake. It makes more sense that those pre-spaceflight weapons would be weak against armour and good against internals. It's even more or less covered in the rules.

[Lord of All]

Barghest Whelp, on 26 April 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Sorry? Every other ammo consuming weapon in the game gets more damage per ton than machine gun ammo. Care to explain to me why on earth this should not apply to the machine gun? Is there a particular reason why this poor little abused gun should get yet another handicap, on top of all the others?

In fact, I don't see any logical reason for the machine gun not to be equal to all the other weapons in the game. Apart from not wanting people to use them that is, but then why on earth can't they just remove it?

And if they're so bloody desparate to have a critseeking weapon that doesn't damage armour, then just add rifles for christ sake. It makes more sense that those pre-spaceflight weapons would be weak against armour and good against internals. It's even more or less covered in the rules.

I got an idea, why don't you goto a gun forum and plant that statement and see how much fun you have.

[Barghest Whelp]

Lord of All, on 26 April 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

I got an idea, why don't you goto a gun forum and plant that statement and see how much fun you have.

Oh sure. Can you point me to the nearest "sci-fi technobabble magic fairyland with absolutely no foothold in reality" gun forum?

Because I just don't really see it fitting in any other kind of gun forum.

Oh, and that whole "realism" thing, you know, the one that doesn't actually exist since everything in the game is made up hokus pokus? It never works well for game balancing. If you don't believe me, then I can tell you that the most realistic FPS's out there are far from the most popular.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Lord of All, on 26 April 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

I got an idea, why don't you goto a gun forum and plant that statement and see how much fun you have.

I do not understand your objection, could you please explain it?

All ACs currently have around 150 potential damage per ton of ammo.

• AC 10: 15 shots per ton, 150 damage
  
• AC 5: 30 shots per ton, 150 damage
  
• AC 2: 75 shots per ton: 150 damage
  
• AC20: 7 shots per ton: 140 damage
  
• UAC5: 25 shots: 125 damage (balanced by other bonuses of the weapon)
  
• MG: 2000 shots, 80 total damage !!?!???

Why does the MG have such a low potential?

[Barghest Whelp]

Tickdoff Tank, on 26 April 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I do not understand your objection, could you please explain it?

All ACs currently have around 150 potential damage per ton of ammo.

• AC 10: 15 shots per ton, 150 damage
  
• AC 5: 30 shots per ton, 150 damage
  
• AC 2: 75 shots per ton: 150 damage
  
• AC20: 7 shots per ton: 140 damage
  
• UAC5: 25 shots: 125 damage (balanced by other bonuses of the weapon)
  
• MG: 2000 shots, 80 total damage !!?!???

Why does the MG have such a low potential?

Because he's talking about realism in a fictional universe with fictional physics.

You know, kind of like how ERLL's don't do more damage than LL's, because of some magical physics technobabble that has absolutely no foothold in reality as it stands.

[FupDup]

Something I finally just remembered about the Small Laser comparison is that SL's are not particularly a good weapon themselves right now because they're fully outclassed by Medium Lasers (they're still leagues ahead of MGs though). A SL (and SPL while we're at it) buff would be nice to have as well (it also allows us to have a comparably stronger MG, because that's the weapon we're using as a measuring stick for where the MG should be).

Edited by FupDup, 26 April 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 April 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

Something I finally just remembered about the Small Laser comparison is that SL's are not particularly a good weapon themselves right now because they're fully outclassed by Medium Lasers (they're still leagues ahead of MGs though). A SL (and SPL while we're at it) buff would be nice to have as well (it also allows us to have a comparably stronger MG, because that's the weapon we're using as a measuring stick for where the MG should be).

Is it our job to buff underpowered weapons? Shouldn't we get paid to care?

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 26 April 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Is it our job to buff underpowered weapons? Shouldn't we get paid to care?

I'd do it for free...

Heck, I'd PAY PGI to let me buff underpowered weapons lol.

[TOGSolid]

Fun Machine Gun fact: I've landed 29,901 Machine Gun shots but only did a grand total of 1,151 damage. This works out to only .0385 damage per shot instead of the full .04.

Lol?

[hammerreborn]

TOGSolid, on 26 April 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

Fun Machine Gun fact: I've landed 29,901 Machine Gun shots but only did a grand total of 1,151 damage. This works out to only .0385 damage per shot instead of the full .04.

Lol?

Mine is the opposite, lol.

6,651 20.48% 01:05:42 288

.043 damage a hit.

[Gremlich Johns]

TOGSolid, on 26 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

If MGs did 2.5 times their current DPS they would have the unstoppable, terrifying fury of a small laser.
I'd say that's about right.

with no heat penalty - that makes a buff to the MG's wrong. Who that is a proponent of higher dmg MGs not a proponent of the PPCs?

[TOGSolid]

Gremlich Johns, on 27 April 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

with no heat penalty - that makes a buff to the MG's wrong. Who that is a proponent of higher dmg MGs not a proponent of the PPCs?

Are you seriously suggesting that a weapon that hits like a small laser and would still require you to bring along ammo that wastes tonnage and space is as horrifying as the current PPC?

Really?

Really?

Edited by TOGSolid, 27 April 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Deathlike]

Do we actually have to increase heat of an MG from 0 to .01 (or so) to make some heat degenerates happy?