1386 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

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.

That actually proves my point. With the engine taking 6 slots while the ECM is taking 2 slots, the engine is 3 times more likely to get hit. If your ECM got blown away the chances were that your engine was already destroyed.

[Deathlike]

Kmieciu, on 15 April 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

That actually proves my point. With the engine taking 6 slots while the ECM is taking 2 slots, the engine is 3 times more likely to get hit. If your ECM got blown away the chances were that your engine was already destroyed.

Actually... that's not usually the case. Given the engine is 15HP, but the ECM being 3HP, it takes no less than an AC5 or enough streaks to shred it.

I lose it enough on a Raven (remember a raven has a significantly weaker internal structure value than the Atlas)... so I had to actually move it elsewhere.

[Kmieciu]

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

Actually... that's not usually the case. Given the engine is 15HP, but the ECM being 3HP, it takes no less than an AC5 or enough streaks to shred it.

I lose it enough on a Raven (remember a raven has a significantly weaker internal structure value than the Atlas)... so I had to actually move it elsewhere.

For the Raven, there isn't a big difference between internal HP (22 for the center torso) and the engine HP (15). But engine criticals would be a big deal for assault mechs. Having said that, i would not bother trying to crit the engine from 90 meters using machineguns, if I had the chance to destroy the engine with a single shot from 600 meters.

Gauss and AC20 would be better at destroying engines than 6x machine guns.

Edited by Kmieciu, 16 April 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[Deathlike]

Kmieciu, on 16 April 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

For the Raven, there isn't a big difference between internal HP (22 for the center torso) and the engine HP (15). But engine criticals would be a big deal for assault mechs. Having said that, i would not bother trying to crit the engine from 90 meters using machineguns, if I had the chance to destroy the engine with a single shot from 600 meters.

Gauss and AC20 would be better at destroying engines than 6x machine guns.

My point was about ECM being shredded easily.. not so much about the engine or MGs for that matter.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 April 2013 - 12:10 AM.

[Rasc4l]

"CCQ 3: Why is Machine Gun damage so low? A: Partly due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules, partially due to how we chose to make it useful. When equipping a MG, keep in mind that it is not meant to burn through armor but is very useful for tearing up internals (crits). Bumping MG damage will turn it into a laser that can be kept on with no heat penalty until it runs out of ammo. Now imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! We are still investigating balance of the MG but don’t expect any significant increase in damage."

This makes me sad because such comments make me question whether PGI actually lacks the raw intelligence to finish this game properly. Things in life are not just YES or NO or 1 or 0 or black or white. There is this thing called golden middle way, which you don't seem to see when one looks at how missiles were "balanced". Yeah, I know it's temporary but you don't have to go from OP to completely useless. So, with MGs, I don't know how to tell you this except:

- You don't have to make MGs the new no-heat small laser!
- You can actually leave it somewhere between that and the current situation
- That situation could be, for example, that the damage is increased something like 2x

[FireSlade]

Dremster, on 15 April 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

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.

God I love that gun and the plane for that matter, (only plane that I ever saw fly back to base and landing after having a missile hit the wing and blow most of the skin off and suck the debris through the engine). Though I'm glad that they never made machine guns like this, (imagine Ravens or Spiders running around with 2-4 of these), but it would be sweet if they followed canon/TT and implemented the Gatling model machine guns, (the current model looks so wimpy), and lowered the damage to levels where it would be similar to now with a ROF of 3000 rounds a minute. The other thing to do is keep the damage output the same but give things like engine heat sinks HP so when they get taken out it would act like the engine cracking in canon; on top of that give actuators HP so that when they get destroyed, the Mech has movement penalties like torso twist is slower and can't turn as far. These things would make the machine gun what it was meant to be, (a "niche" weapon), while keeping it from being able to damage armor significantly.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the machine gun rounds should also have a similar bullet speed to the AC/2 since it is a smaller caliber round. I’m not sure how they determine flight speed but a 800 grain .50 caliber has roughly the muzzle velocity of 882 meters per second. Also tracer rounds they look cool and make it easier to see where the rounds are heading.

Edited by FireSlade, 16 April 2013 - 04:59 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

Merchant, on 15 April 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Continued because using Preview Post, discovered there is a limit of 10 quotations before the Forum software gives an error of not having enough matching Quote tags even though you do have them.

Given that MG to SL damage was 2/3 in the same time period, I would expect 0.67DPS for a MG.
Just where in TT does it mention DPS? Never had a reference to it.

haha Oh the forums software, I feel your pain man.

Anyways of all your postings I wanted to focus on two sentances and I think they play off each other. Table top doesn't mention DPS because it's a turn based game. It's not important to factor in time when you're taking turns.

They are going to need to take liberties when converting things from table top to live action multi-player video game. So what I think their focus should be is on the focus of the spirit of what the weapon should do.

What is the spirit of the machine gun? the lightest ballistic weapon, it is an anti mech weapon the range is limited but not the effectiveness. What damage would make it effective? more than .6 in my opinion. After watching the video of the 24 dps spider I can say that 4 dps isn't as OP as you might think.

I think most people on this thread would agree that we'd like to know how the devs feel, what they are thinking, and what data they have to support their position that this thing is useful.

[Nihtgenga]

Rasc4l, on 16 April 2013 - 01:33 AM, said:

"CCQ 3: Why is Machine Gun damage so low? A: Partly due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules, partially due to how we chose to make it useful. When equipping a MG, keep in mind that it is not meant to burn through armor but is very useful for tearing up internals (crits). Bumping MG damage will turn it into a laser that can be kept on with no heat penalty until it runs out of ammo. Now imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! We are still investigating balance of the MG but don’t expect any significant increase in damage."

This makes me sad because such comments make me question whether PGI actually lacks the raw intelligence to finish this game properly.

I think, the main point is not lack of intelligence, but stubbornnes. Someone decided the MG to get the crit-seeker-only role, and doesn't want to change, that's about it, no roll-back, that was also the feedback already. They do not really mind the question, how to get the armour off first, they do not really mind the point that there not even is a real crit implementation aside of destroyed loadout items (e.g. getting a "stiff arm", when someone crits your arm actuators, engine crit = insta-kill, basically the only realistic kill-option with MGs on heavier enemies currently). It is not a matter of the damage value in a chart, actually (we have seen on missiles, that they do change that quite quickly without big discussions - and in the referred-on TT, the MGs "nature" is -rimshot please- really dealing damage, a Piranha hitting hard with up to 24 dmg/turn), it seems to be a general matter of accepting constructive feedback from the beta-testers over their own ideas on the basics, how things should work in MWO (similar discussion like with ECM, NARC, BAP,...).
MG balancing has been adressed once and deliberately ignored, it is now being adressed for the second time, and we'll finally see, how much they care about.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 16 April 2013 - 07:13 AM.

[boris le hachoir]

Dremster, on 15 April 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

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 T-72(1967) with a 1-2 second burst. It is the main cannon of the A-10 Warthog.

Better like that

Moderns tanks are nowhere near a T-72 in terms for survivability

Edited by boris le hachoir, 16 April 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[FireSlade]

boris le hachoir, on 16 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Better like that

Moderns tanks are nowhere near a T-72 in terms for survivability

With the different rounds and that the tops of tanks are lightly armored the difference between a T-72/Cold War Tank and a Modern Tank with reactive/ceramic armor in terms of survivability is what 1-2 extra seconds? Trust me a 1970 era plane that is also one of the slowest wouldn't be still used today if that Gatling Cannon wasn't effective against modern tanks.

[Nihtgenga]

Stop bitching at each others knowledge (or lack thereof) about real warfare equipment. Like said several times before, this is not reality, and no weapon in MWO is said to be an exact clone of a real weapon, we're discussing MWOs implementation of the Mech-"MG" here. Thank you in advance.

[RealityCheck]

Nihtgenga, on 16 April 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Stop bitching at each others knowledge (or lack thereof) about real warfare equipment. Like said several times before, this is not reality, and no weapon in MWO is said to be an exact clone of a real weapon, we're discussing MWOs implementation of the Mech-"MG" here. Thank you in advance.

You said it, Nihtgenga!

HammerSwarm, on 16 April 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

I think most people on this thread would agree that we'd like to know how the devs feel, what they are thinking, and what data they have to support their position that this thing is useful.

My thoughts exactly.

RealityCheck

[Loler skates]

boris le hachoir, on 16 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Better like that

Moderns tanks are nowhere near a T-72 in terms for survivability

lol no.

Modern tank armour is about fifty hojillian times more effective.

to the point where a 105MM Tank bore on the Abrams couldn't actually easily blow up a fellow tank they had to scuttle with out firing multiple shots to the rear armour.

RealityCheck, on 16 April 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

You said it, Nihtgenga!



My thoughts exactly.

RealityCheck

but this song and dance is unneeded, it's obvious to any one with a function brain that mgs are worthless in their current state. Some don't want it changed because of stupid reasons like real life and HERP TT.

The devs don't want to fix it because CRIT SEEKING LAWL

Others want a functioning light weight ballisitic weapon, the pgi devs don't.

Idiocy rules at the moment.

[Prezimonto]

I'm going to bump this since it's gotten several likes and zero actual commentary. If engines were critable, it wouldn't totally fix MG's as other weapons would still also do crits, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

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.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 April 2013 - 12:29 PM.

[stjobe]

Prezimonto, on 16 April 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'm going to bump this since it's gotten several likes and zero actual commentary. If engines were critable, it wouldn't totally fix MG's as other weapons would still also do crits, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

The whole crit implementation is flawed; you only get critted seconds before you die.

If crits were somehow attainable earlier (NOT saying through-armour criticals) it might be interesting to actually achieve a crit; as it is, crit effects are so temporary as to be pointless.

[General Taskeen]

Prezimonto, on 16 April 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'm going to bump this since it's gotten several likes and zero actual commentary. If engines were critable, it wouldn't totally fix MG's as other weapons would still also do crits, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

As it as already been explained. They will never make it possible for an Engine to suddenly die and be destroyed by "chance" by crits if its internal damage health is already high. Do you know how frustrating that would be for someone to roll a virtual dice, 2D6, and suddenly you're dead in a Mech Warrior game? Whoops too bad, because rolling dice.

Edited by General Taskeen, 16 April 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[shintakie]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 April 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

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?

Why do I keep seein ammo limitations bein suggested? Its a terrible plan that makes a bad weapon worse.

Even a 6 SL Jenner is almost entirely heat efficient with DHS. I've gone entire matches alphaing most of the match and never once worried about shutdowns.

If I can do that in a SL boat with absolutely no issue, why the heck should a MG boat be subjected to horrible ammo limitations?

[Corvus Antaka]

as per btech mg has 200 rounds of ammo.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 April 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

as per btech mg has 200 rounds of ammo.

Are this 200 rounds enough to fire for only 20s (that would make 2 TT turns, right?)? I'm asking seriously, I don't know that and would like to know.

Edit: and how much damage would a ton of MG ammo deal to enemy, provided you hit with every single round?

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 16 April 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[FupDup]