1386 replies to this topic

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Orzorn, on 09 April 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

But that's wrong. That's 2 damage per round, and a round represents 10 seconds. That means a TT machine guns damage per second is actually 0.2 damage per second.

The current MWO machine gun deals 0.4 damage per second, a 100% increase. Wow, one might say, 100%, so they're even better in MWO! But that's not true. Armor was doubled, meaning machine guns basically do their TT damage per second, which would be fine, except that all other weapons in the game have faster fire rates, meaning their damage per 10 seconds is almost tripled! For instance, the small laser does 1 DPS, meaning its damage per 10 in MWO is 10, whereas its damage in the TT is 3!

I haven't been suggesting 2 DPS for the machine gun. This is simply a math miscalculation on your part, and thus, a misunderstanding. I would personally suggest that even 1 DPS would not be that great, although would be a huge improvement, for these reasons:

• Machine guns spread their damage
  
• Machine guns must fire continuously to deal the same damage in 10 seconds as a small laser would deal in 3 seconds of firing

As for those who would claim that heightened damage would make their current crit seeking multipliers overpowered, then the simple answer is to lower their multipliers.

You know I did take the time to cross check that and yes 1 round = 10 seconds. Now I suppose the question is why did they decide to not match DPS across the board?

Yes I forgot after so many years of not playing TT that 1 round is 10 seconds but it is there in all the books with Sequence of Play.

[Utilyan]

"....while still being effective at damaging Battlemechs. It should be noted that despite their enhanced effectiveness against infantry, BattleMech machine guns are perfectly capable of stripping the armor off any BattleMech."


^Thats what BT-Sarna says. I love machine guns, I got a cicada-3c and Jag-dd.....both with machineguns and flamers.

As much as I love them and every now and then itch at them being better...........WE MUST SAY NO TO BUFF.

Its better to push for "cosmetics" differ options of color tracer rounds, differ options of sound effects, think of it as a toy.

Same with flamers there was a time you can just keep a mech shut down with flamers..... I rather put on a show have flamers light buildings on fire.....or make smoke screens.....or have fire woosh on the ground like in BACKDRAFT.


If they gonna make machine guns "GOOD" the best way is let it stay useless against armor, good vs unarmored.........right now its the worst vs unarmored.

Now if they want to be worst in "DAMAGE" armore and unarmored with only crit killer, then they have to fix the crits that it can kill.

As is crit system is not destroying ammo, not damaging gyros or engines, not messing up torso twist, not destroying actuators ect.

Or if its shooting the internals of something without anything crit-destructible it should begin to follow its own rules of internal damage transfer to take out a crit SOMEWHERE.....

OR......maybe have the critical "space" be destroyed. Like right torso I think has 12 spaces.....

So imagine (you wouldn't see this) That each empty space was listed on on the mech just like weapons are. As you shoot ......dakka dakka...... Weapon goes red to black(destroyed) empty space goes red to black, heat sink goes read to black. So if all crit spaces are gone that entire part should go boom....destroyed. Instead of a getting crits...oh nothing there.....oh nothing there....... Something better then the bonus of nothing.



Again as is...... Machine Guns is the WORST vs. Unarmored target, I don't think that was the intent. Or if it is fill us in.

[Orzorn]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

You know I did take the time to cross check that and yes 1 round = 10 seconds.

Its okay. Now we're on the same page.

Quote

Now I suppose the question is why did they decide to not match DPS across the board?

Yes, that's what so many others have been asking, and where much of the points come from. Machine guns, as they are, do not match up with the rest of the game, and thus will remain weak until their DPS is brought up to par.

If you wanted them to be the exact 2/3rds of the small laser's 10 second damage (Mguns did 2 damage in TT, small lasers did 3. Now, machine guns do 4 damage in 10 seconds, and small lasers do 10), then machine guns should have dealt 0.06 damage per round, making their damage in 10 seconds 6.66 damage, or exactly 2/3rds of a small laser's damage. As it is, however, machine guns only deal 40% of a small laser's damage.

Even still, that would leave machine guns not performing very well. As many have pointed out, to deal, say, 10 damage in 10 seconds (the same as a small laser), the machine gun must fire continuously the entire time and not miss. Small lasers need only fire for 3 seconds (.75 beam duration * 4 firings). So a machine gun must still fire for 333% more time to deal the same damage!

Quote

Yes I forgot after so many years of not playing TT that 1 round is 10 seconds but it is there in all the books with Sequence of Play.

Its all good.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Orzorn, on 09 April 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Its okay. Now we're on the same page.


Yes, that's what so many others have been asking, and where much of the points come from. Machine guns, as they are, do not match up with the rest of the game, and thus will remain weak until their DPS is brought up to par.

If you wanted them to be the exact 2/3rds of the small laser's 10 second damage (Mguns did 2 damage in TT, small lasers did 3. Now, machine guns do 4 damage in 10 seconds, and small lasers do 10), then machine guns should have dealt 0.06 damage per round, making their damage in 10 seconds 6.66 damage, or exactly 2/3rds of a small laser's damage. As it is, however, machine guns only deal 40% of a small laser's damage.

Even still, that would leave machine guns not performing very well. As many have pointed out, to deal, say, 10 damage in 10 seconds (the same as a small laser), the machine gun must fire continuously the entire time and not miss. Small lasers need only fire for 3 seconds (.75 beam duration * 4 firings). So a machine gun must still fire for 333% more time to deal the same damage!


Its all good.

While there is a cone of fire on the MGs no one will disagree I must say that SL still dot a DOT effect also and must be held on target. The current stats read even if you touched an enemy wit ha laser so we can not base hit ratio off that as you my have a 90% hit ratio and just saying only ticked them for 1 damage 45% of the time. another say 45% is 2 damage and the last 10% is full 3 damage. Again we really do not know so its just a hypothetical.


Now to resolve MGs they should be .6 DPS while still holding down the cone of fire simply because of the obvious missing of SLs.

Now here is another question then;
What should the ammo be? 2000 is 10x more then TT and MGs already do 2x the DPS of the TT. So what maybe 400 rounds for a buff of MGs to .6?

I think that would be a fair trade off less ammo more dps. At least to stick closer to other ammo based weapons we have in the game.

Come to think of that why do people not complain you do not get even more ammo for the other ammo based systems? I mean the poor AC/20s they only got a .5 x increase in ammo where the MGs which do more DPS then TT got 10x more ammo I think this should be the new outrage. /s

[Mypa333]

I want to drive a MG Spider and get more than 20 damage per game.

Or just remove the flamers and MGs...at least I wont be getting annoyed that they're on the list and I can't use them.

[Critical Fumble]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Come to think of that why do people not complain you do not get even more ammo for the other ammo based systems? I mean the poor AC/20s they only got a .5 x increase in ammo where the MGs which do more DPS then TT got 10x more ammo I think this should be the new outrage. /s

Because reasons, and with how accurate you can be, you don't necessarily need the full 2X ammo. Also, MGs lose out any way you look at that one, TT ammo gave 200 "rounds" (2,000 seconds of fire) dealing a potential 400 DMG while our MG ammo deals up to 80 and lasts 200 seconds.

Also comparing TT DOT values, MGs may have 0.2 DPS, but that is in a world with 0.5 DPS MLs and 2 DPS AC/20s.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Critical Fumble, on 09 April 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Because reasons, and with how accurate you can be, you don't necessarily need the full 2X ammo. Also, MGs lose out any way you look at that one, TT ammo gave 200 "rounds" (2,000 seconds of fire) dealing a potential 400 DMG while our MG ammo deals up to 80 and lasts 200 seconds.

Also comparing TT DOT values, MGs may have 0.2 DPS, but that is in a world with 0.5 DPS MLs and 2 DPS AC/20s.

I hope that was trying to be sarcastic since I know that little tidbit of mine was.

[stjobe]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Now here is another question then;
What should the ammo be? 2000 is 10x more then TT and MGs already do 2x the DPS of the TT. So what maybe 400 rounds for a buff of MGs to .6?

I think that would be a fair trade off less ammo more dps. At least to stick closer to other ammo based weapons we have in the game.

Come to think of that why do people not complain you do not get even more ammo for the other ammo based systems? I mean the poor AC/20s they only got a .5 x increase in ammo where the MGs which do more DPS then TT got 10x more ammo I think this should be the new outrage. /s

No, the MG didn't get 10x more ammo, it got 90% LESS ammo.

In BT, the MG had 200 rounds of ammo and fired once per 10s turn, i.e. it could fire for 200 turns (or 2,000 seconds).
In MWO, the MG has 2,000 rounds of ammo but fires 10 rounds per second, i.e. it can fire for 200 seconds.
200 / 2000 = 0.1 or 10% of the ammo the MG had in BT.

Also, the MG's damage per ton of ammo is a record-low 80, whereas most of the other ballistics have 150.

You're correct that the other ballistics got about a 50% increase in ammo capacity - it's just another of the baffling discrepancies with the MG compared to other weapons.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Even with the cirtical hitt buff, MGs are substandard weapons. They need a damage buff. I can not think of any other buff that it needs more.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

While there is a cone of fire on the MGs no one will disagree I must say that SL still dot a DOT effect also and must be held on target. The current stats read even if you touched an enemy wit ha laser so we can not base hit ratio off that as you my have a 90% hit ratio and just saying only ticked them for 1 damage 45% of the time. another say 45% is 2 damage and the last 10% is full 3 damage. Again we really do not know so its just a hypothetical.

TL;DR:
A single MG would deal 0.33 point of damage per minute and a single Small Laser would deal 2.76 points of damage per minute.

Actually, if you take a look at your statistics, you'll see not only a percentile value indicating overall accuracy, but also values indicating damage done and shots fired as well as successfully hit for each weapon.

According to my stats, I can see that I've fired Small Lasers exactly 254 times, succesfully hitting a target 227 times though I only dealt 350 points of damage when I should have dealt about 762 points in total - 1.37 damage dealt per shot fired.
This represents an accuracy of 45% with Small Lasers, though the shots fired/hit statistic returns a value of 89.37%.

I've also fired Machine Guns 1625 times, successfully hitting a target 789 times and dealing 24 damage instead of the expected 31.56 - the value of damage dealt per shot fired stands at 0.015.
My accuracy for MGs according to the statistics screen is 48.55%, but I've only dealt so much damage as a 37.5% accuracy would otherwise indicate.

Of course, I don't use MGs or Small Lasers very often, favoring instead the Medium Laser, so my accuracy for both of these weapons are probably lower than average.

Assuming that these statistics are reliable, however, we can see that the MG requires a significant damage boost to even become comparable to the Small Laser.
Looking at my statistics screen, I can see that in 21 minutes, I've dealt 350 points of damage with Small Lasers, whereas I've only dealt 24 points of damage with MGs in about 24 minutes.

Now that's another way to look at MG damage, is it not?
As I've used a 6x Small Laser JR7-F and an Illya with 3x MGs (don't ask), I shall double the MG damage done in order to compare it to the Small Laser damage done.

The result is 48 points of MG damage in 24 minutes or 2 points of damage per minute compared to 16.6 points of Small Laser damage per minute in actual battle conditions.

TL;DR:
A single MG would deal 0.33 point of damage per minute and a single Small Laser would deal 2.76 points of damage per minute.

This value is derived from actual gameplay experience, not just hypotheticals.

MGs are apparently even worse in practice than theory would indicate, dealing only a fraction of Small Laser damage.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 09 April 2013 - 07:56 AM.

[Utilyan]

Machine guns might be working as intended as said.

It might be a piece thats NOT broke. And ammo, gyro,actuators, all internal components are "incomplete".

You can't blow up ammo with MG for example, It might blow up if section of the entire body blows.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Okay so how about it only works like a short range AC/2 with a .5 second delay of fire and we bump the ammo down to hrm say 75 rounds per ton.

I mean really there is no simple fix for MGs that would not equate to a lighter ac/2 with more ammo.

The only real buff has been suggested and that would be to increase to .6 dps now you can either hurt your ammo and make it fire slower or keep 10 rounds a second and roll with 2000 rounds.

[Tickdoff Tank]

I send Garth a PM with the following:

Quote

I truly think that MGs are not as useful as they should be. Crit seeking is not enough. I do not think crit seeking will be enough even with increased component damage effects (you mentioned engine/actuator critical hit effects). Without a base damage buff the MG will not be useful in the majority of situations, and the narrow window of usefulness will continue to force the MG onto joke builds and mechs that are only used while leveling another mech to master.

It should not be this way.

Please, strongly consider a damage buff to MGs. Buff the damage for a short time, clearly announce the buff to MG damage and the length of time that you are testing the change. While you are setting up the buff for the MGs, also have a fall back "hotfix" to quickly reverse the change if it causes problems. I suggest that you either test an MG damage buff for a full 2 week patch cycle, but if you think that is too much then do it for 1 weekend (Friday-Tuesday, such as your sales/tournament weekends). You could even have a "MG mech tournament"

Take a good look at the feedback in several of the MG threads. There was some intelligent and reasonable information to consider. Please do not allow the overreaction of the forumites to obscure an actual issue.

Ok, I have said my piece on MGs.

Will post again if I get a response.

[Iqfish]

I like the real world comparison.
A 500 Kilogram MG in Real life is a giant Gatling gun, which can cut Cars in half, and make Tanks explode.

The Devs have stated many times now, that after all the math, the feeling of a weapon is a product of all these numbers, and some values look different if you try them in game.
Ok, let's have a look at MG's in game. 4 of them



Something NEEDS to be done.

My 2x LBX Atlas is calling for a Buff too, this whole crit-seeking thing is idiotic

[Lorcan Lladd]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Okay so how about it only works like a short range AC/2 with a .5 second delay of fire and we bump the ammo down to hrm say 75 rounds per ton.

I mean really there is no simple fix for MGs that would not equate to a lighter ac/2 with more ammo.

The only real buff has been suggested and that would be to increase to .6 dps now you can either hurt your ammo and make it fire slower or keep 10 rounds a second and roll with 2000 rounds.

According to my projections the MG damage per minute would be 0.54 compared to the 0.33 present if this buff were to be applied - it's an improvement, but this would still be far below Small Laser damage and it would also incur an increase in required ammunition tonnage.
I understand where you're coming from and I like your suggestion, but I still think MG damage needs a 5-8x increase, leaving their ammo capacity intact if they're supposed to be compared to Small Lasers in terms of performance.

Tickdoff Tank, on 09 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

I send Garth a PM with the following:

Will post again if I get a response.

We forumites will eagerly await your return.

[Deathlike]

Challenge to PGI:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2206947

MGs have never been a threat... when using them, and being on the receiving end of them. I've not recorded any MG stats since stats were live... because I've learned long ago that they are woefully ineffective.

Although some of us have used the excuses of the Raven-4X and Cicada-3C, they do have alternatively viable options to MGs, believe it or not, due to TONNAGE. I've run a 4X with 2 meds+1UAC5 before, and that worked out OK (had been testing AC5, LBX10s, AC10s during that time). The Cicada-3C is build very much like a Spider-5K, except that the energy slot can hold a PPC, unlike the spider, which its energy slot is in the CT... limiting its options. The ballistic slots are in the torso (the Cic has a large torso), whereas the spider's ballistic slots are on the thin and frail arms. The Cicada has more tonnage to work with to boot...

The 5K is most affected by the MGs being garbage. Trying to fit an AC2 or better pretty much requires major sacrifices to the CT energy weapon (having a med laser or worse).

Imagine how this would be received by the Flea, which its major variants are laser and ballistic based. For most of us that are familiar with the current MG status.. they are virtually DOA offensively, especially for whichever the ballistic variant happens to be. Anyone who doesn't realize how bad MGs are and plan to use the Flea as a capping platform with MGs, will be sorely disappointed.

People forget that the ROF in conjunction with the MG ammo, makes MG ammo a bigger liability than many other ammo types... as the damage potential of MG ammo is 80 (1 full ton) and the ammo consumption of an MG platform is rather slow... someone could calculate the ETA to emptying one ton of ammo... but suffice it to say that it's more of a hindrance than most ammo types... including the AC20.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Lorcan Lladd, on 09 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

According to my projections the MG damage per minute would be 0.54 compared to the 0.33 present if this buff were to be applied - it's an improvement, but this would still be far below Small Laser damage and it would also incur an increase in required ammunition tonnage.
I understand where you're coming from and I like your suggestion, but I still think MG damage needs a 5-8x increase, leaving their ammo capacity intact if they're supposed to be compared to Small Lasers in terms of performance.




We forumites will eagerly await your return.

Okay no matter what SL do 3 damage in TT 3 Damage(per 10 secs), in game it has a DPS of 1 total so 60 damage a minute possible.

If we look at the MGs they have 2 damage per 10 seconds in TT translate it to game it would be .6666666666667.... to match with the SL.

Now we get into ammo in the game you have 200 rounds per ton but actions are every ten seconds.
In the current game there is no turn base so it is all live. so really we have to be forced to throw turn time out the window.

Now if they were to buff the MG to .66DPS you would need 606 rounds if each round did damage a second only.

Now the current issue is they are not 1 round per second but 10 so you need 6060 rounds (by the way I rounded down in most cases so far) we only get 2000.

I think we the players if we are to argue for a buff need to figure out a compromise.
Do we ask for .66 to bring it in line with the SL and go with 1 round per second doing some CD like a .25 to fire .75 cooldown
Do we ask for .66 and also ask for more ammo keeping it at 10 rounds a second (better choice)
Do we say hey we would like a real DPS increase pleas make it .66 DPS with current rounds and because you tossed us that bone we are fine with 2000 rounds per ton.

I like the last option myself since its sort of a compromise.

[ICEFANG13]

Of course they need a buff, nothing about them is good, not even the heatless part makes up for the lack of everything else.

Even to players that say that MG shouldn't be buffed infantry and all that, do you really think the MG is balanced? Alright so for whatever reason you want it to remain the same (its supposed to be weak yadda yadda yadda), do you think its balanced?

PS if you think MGs shouldn't do damage because of infantry, even though it has the same damage as an A/C-2 in TT, we can just rename them into "Anti-Mech Small Ballistic" and we can stop hearing about it.

[Critical Fumble]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

I hope that was trying to be sarcastic since I know that little tidbit of mine was.

Oh, right. Sorry, too used to seeing people use a misunderstanding of the word "Quintessential" as a reason for MGs being half-ton party favors.

And as Viterbi asked nicely, a reason why crit-seeking is not useful.

The Cicadas 3M (1B, 4E) and 3C (4B, 1E). I've used the 3M from before it had ECM, and the 3C was the third Cicada I used to gain mastery. Both of those mechs I use in similar to stock form. I also use them in more of a fire support role than ninja brawling.

With the 3M, I use a UAC/5 and smack exposed targets while sticking close to the bulk of my allies and, if possible, in reach of cover. I try not to be close to the enemy, but when I have to I have four MLs to swat them with in addition to still having a UAC/5. I can also go to brawl distance for finishing off or distracting an isolated target. It works fairly well for me.

Same idea with the 3C. The PPC replaces the UAC as the at range weapon. That part is nice, I like the PPC. The problem is, when I'm in close combat, MGs are what I have to go with. Which is fine so long as it can't keep up with me, but if its a Jenner, or Raven, or another Cicada, or a Commando, or a Spider, I'm toast if I can't get someone else to kill it for me. Add that with how everyone who sees me appears to salivate and think "free kill", and I'm mostly just 40 tons of bait. I suppose that could be useful, but if I'm being bait, I'd rather do it in a better armed mech. I've tried other setups, but I've yet to find one that is actually worth using.

I've been meaning to try round results with that 3C and a 2A built to mimic it replacing the MGs with SLs, just to make a point.

I can accept a "utility" weapon that isn't wildly effective because it has a different, useful effect. However, there are a fair number of mechs where a light ballistic is the obvious choice, and they're forced to use a "utility" weapon rather than a damage weapon. There's no reason why there couldn't be two different light ballistics, one which has "utility" and one which can damage armor.

[Jonathan Paine]

If MGs are not supposed to do any armor damage, and all it does is seek crits on internal... why would you need 6 MGs? There ARE NOT THAT MANY THINGS TO CRIT. Sorry about the caps.

Light mechs have one real ballistics option, the MG. Some light mechs (looking at you spider!) have many ballistics slots, that for all intents and purposes are useless. The next step up from a useless MG is a 6 ton weapon, the AC2. Which needs tons for ammo.

Just give us a weekend with the damage boost that we crave, and you can prove to us how OP the spider would be. Double daring you PGI.