1386 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Clan MG's weigh less and do the same damage. 2. And they damage Mechs.

[Critical Fumble]

Ahck, I figured I didn't get that out clearly.

Sometimes, yes, the feature comes first as you're making something. See any game with a lot of similar elements, like shooters (the guns). You intentionally diversify the features to add variety, but the final word is always the item's purpose: Feature 207 is unique, but does it fulfill a role in the game effectively? If not, you need to rework it until it does, because otherwise its just a shiny bauble that distracts from the well made parts of the game.

[Loler skates]

any response yet or has this been a total waste of time where they just sweep all the mg threads out of GD?

[Varnas]

Someone bitchslap PGI to wake them up and make them see the truth!

Edited by Varnas, 21 April 2013 - 02:50 AM.

[Huge]

Loler skates, on 21 April 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

any response yet or has this been a total waste of time where they just sweep all the mg threads out of GD?

Pretty much the intention.

They know the MG is crap. Either they don't know how to fix it or don't care. They don't like the forums driving away potential customers with non-stop endless bitching about something they really should be that hard for them to fix. Easier to have a mod thought police us and close any MG thread and route them here. Where past 10 pages ideas and arguments just keep getting repeated because who is going to look through 25 frigan pages of past posts?

They can hide the problem while claiming it is for the best to consolidate the MG outcry into a single thread.

Which they can promptly ignore.

[Loler skates]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 09 April 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

You missed the main points and all you have done is shown rage if you do not understand then you never will my friend and I am sorry for that.

I would also like to note that OMG 6PEWPEW Jenner has been that way since CB and nobody complained till recently. Get it yet?

Man people like you **** me the hell off.

You misunderstood his entire point.

If the JENNER with 6 medium lasers isn't over powered.

Then a spider with 4 MGS doing 1.6 dmg a second per MG isn't going to be close to over powered.

His point which sailed over your head like a god, bloody damn intercontinental ballistic missile

[MustrumRidcully]

Critical Fumble, on 20 April 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Personal, somewhat editorialized, perception of the issue: Their design philosophy is feature oriented, not purpose oriented.

I think that is pretty much the case with the entire crit system.

It's a feature. They like it. It doens't really fit a purpose. It's incredible niche and as much as I appreciate the effort in implementing the whole system, that time could probably have been better spend on another feature. Like splash damage. It's not that I dislike having a crit system, I just think they completely overvalue it's relevance to gameplay in MW:O. It is important in the table top, because you can't control hit locations and a random lucky shot to a hit location might amount to the same value as a miss, if it didn't have a chance to at least crit some item. But in MW:O it's minor.

[buttmonkey]

but what is the point in machine guns? correct me if im wrong but arent they for anti personel purposes? and correct me agan if im wrong, but didnt pgi say they wouldnt be having troops/elementals etc in this game?

so why are mgs in the game to begin with.
its actually a little confusing. why have them when thier intended targets are not in game.
maybe im missing something

[Loler skates]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 April 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Hey there Mr. Martyr Complex, I just clawed my way out of the pile of MG threads you left cluttering the GD forum so I could inform you that your MG crusade is now becoming an inconvenience to others. When Bryan Ekman said they look for "trends", I don't think that was permission for people to start flooding forums with identical threads and drowning out every other topic. It's an abuse of your voice as a community member, and if you continue encouraging this kind of behavior, I honestly hope you do get mod-hammered.

I looked those threads over he didn't even start any of them just brought to the mods attention all the older mg threads that show cased this exact problem... Hell one of them even started before the crit buff to mgs was done and explained why it wouldn't work.

Funny how that thread was spot on.

And even funnier how the situation hasn't changed and mgs are still garbage.

[Loler skates]

buttmonkey, on 21 April 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

but what is the point in machine guns? correct me if im wrong but arent they for anti personel purposes? and correct me agan if im wrong, but didnt pgi say they wouldnt be having troops/elementals etc in this game?

so why are mgs in the game to begin with.
its actually a little confusing. why have them when thier intended targets are not in game.
maybe im missing something

They are the only light weight ballistic weapon.

They are good against mechs and should be able to damage them. In every other iteration of mech warrior they have been good at doing this, although they have a very short range which makes them have a nasty down side.

The machine gun name is a misnomer, they are actually autocannons that fire bullets that are four inches long.(real life argument lawl)

In MWO they are needed so light ballistic mechs have a weapon they can use to fill those hardpoints.

With mgs in their current implementation those light mechs are worthless.

[Loler skates]

Viterbi, on 09 April 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Rest assured that your Community Representatives will be monitoring this thread and forwarding your feedback to the developers accordingly. Recall that Bryan has noted that Machine Guns are working as intended, but as with all feedback threads we will continue to review your concerns.

If you could please come back to the discussion regarding Machine Guns itself, we would greatly appreciate a minimal meta-discussion. Posting off-topic, creating duplicate threads, and making nonconstructive remarks, greatly increases our workload and prevents us from time that would normally be spent reviewing your feedback and generating reports of your concerns for our developers.

Sanctions will be placed on accounts that violate our Code of Conduct. Critical feedback can be valuable, but it must be posted in a way that does not undermine other users or our efforts.

Now... back to the discussion on Machine Guns...

Do you actually think any one believes any of that guff at this point?

The entire purpose of this thread is to sweep the mg concerns under the carpet. It was moved to the least trafficked part of the forum. At least in community heat sink in GD it would have been looked at more.

Quote

Rest assured that your Community Representatives will be monitoring this thread and forwarding your feedback to the developers accordingly

Rubbish. No one has any reason to believe this is the case.

focuspark, on 09 April 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Does this mean the devs realize that Machine Guns suck or does it mean the devs are whispering "shut up and go away"?

That said, MG should not be reliant on the lame critical hit bonus thing they have now. Remove it. Make MG 1.2 DPS vs armor and 4.0 DPS vs internals (including components). Change done, useful, situational weapon worth putting on a mech.

Bolded bit is what they are after.

[MustrumRidcully]

buttmonkey, on 21 April 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

but what is the point in machine guns? correct me if im wrong but arent they for anti personel purposes? and correct me agan if im wrong, but didnt pgi say they wouldnt be having troops/elementals etc in this game?

so why are mgs in the game to begin with.
its actually a little confusing. why have them when thier intended targets are not in game.
maybe im missing something

buttmonkey, on 21 April 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

but what is the point in machine guns? correct me if im wrong but arent they for anti personel purposes? and correct me agan if im wrong, but didnt pgi say they wouldnt be having troops/elementals etc in this game?

so why are mgs in the game to begin with.
its actually a little confusing. why have them when thier intended targets are not in game.
maybe im missing something

The thing is - they are anti-infantry weapons because they are good against infantry. One "shot" kills 2d6 infantry units. That's an average of 7 damage - 1 point less than that of a large laser. Not bad for a 0.5 ton weapon. But they are still useful against mechs - it's 2 damage vs them.

The current firing mechanic - continous stream of bullets -fits the looks of an anti-infantry gun quite well. You probably don't really need to deal much damage to an infantry unit (even if it's wearing power armour), compared to a tank or battlemech. But at the end, this damage has still stack up to the damage of an AC/2 or a small laser in some manner.

[Loler skates]

LackofCertainty, on 09 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

A lot of the earlier posts in this thread seem to be coming from the mentally unstable people that think an MG should do 10 DPS or something equally ridiculous, so I'll layout what I want for MG's:

Literally no one any where in the history of ******* ever has asked for that, the hell is wrong with you people.

Pointing out a weapon is worthless doesn't mean they want it to ******* instagib enemies.

Esplodin, on 09 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Sigh. I guess we can only wonder at the reasonable concerns, since you did not post them. They may be reasonable, but this is just supremely frustrating. The very least they could do is post something themselves.

obviously they are afraid of the 6 mg spider man.

SO SCARY.

[Loler skates]

stjobe, on 09 April 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

So... MG stats.

I made a thread yesterday asking for you lot's MG stats, since my own seemed abysmal. Turns out I wasn't just a sucky MechWarrior after all.

The thread didn't last very long before the mods locked it and pointed us here, but 37 people did manage to post their stats, and here are the results:



On average the MG does 0.022 damage per projectile fired, and on average the MGs mounted on a 'mech contributes 19.89 damage per match.

20 damage is massively overpowered when you are a member of pgi and can't hit the broad side of a barn when playing any way.

shintakie, on 09 April 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Glad this got moved to the game balance forums. That way no one can actually find it because no one actually comes here.

You have to give the volunteer moderators credit. They absolutely know how to kill a topic.

Edit - Its more amusin because anyone who doesnt see the MG threads on the general discussion forum once all the locked ones get moved wont even know this feedback thread is here! That way when they make a thread and get it locked they're left to wonder why.

Brilliant plan.

Seriously. Friggin buff the damage. Its not hard. Its idiotic to think they're fine as is when they're COMPLETELY USELESS! In the time you can strip a section of components with a MG you can actually blow off the side with a real weapon. Heck, you can do it with a small laser!

Light ballistic mechs and the 3C need a MG that isn't useless or they'll continue to be the useless piles of garbage they are.

Any developer who thinks they're fine as is should be ashamed of themselves for lettin such an idiotic balance issue continue.

Devs are scared of things that don't exist.

Like three second jenners and 6 mg spiders.

Xelah, on 09 April 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

from this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ametralladoras/



Are you kidding me? I tested this with six SL's and it took 12 seconds to core out the atlas from behind. Six weapons that have the same weight and don't have ammo that explodes and kills me. Why are you guys so terrified of making a useful light ballistic weapon?

What exactly are the MG's supporting as a "support weapon"? Nothing. It's far more useful to just blow the limb off.

I'll tell you what. You go custom make a spider that can load 6 MGs. I'll bring my Atlas as is. I will destroy you every single time. In my Jenner, I hunt Atlases. In my spider 5v? I run around and hope the enemy starts shooting at me so they aren't shooting at my teammates. This critseeking thing is a complete failure. MGs are useless as is any mech that is forced to boat them.

I'm serious about the 6 MG spider. You go make one. Find me. We can go as many times as you want. If you can kill me even once, I will shut up forever on this subject. Whenyou can't, you live with the knowledge that you were wrong... and hopefully put that to some actual use.

Pgi devs are like flailing babies when it comes to this game, have you seen how awful they are when they play?

I swear to god i've seen five year olds play better.

Kmieciu, on 10 April 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

A stock Atlas has 28 rear center armor + 62 internal hp = 90 hp total. That means that a 6SL Jenner has the potential to core 6 Atlases before overheating.



Have you seen topics about 6SL Jenner being overpowered?

only in the dev head canon, where 3 seconds jenner live.

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Can the Jenner fire a endless stream of bullets at zero heat?

Yes, with 6 small lasers and DHS it can basically fire forever.

[Loler skates]

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...8964c5135dd413e

There you go a Jenner-F build with Six small lasers that can fire non-stop for 2 minutes 5 seconds before over heating in otherwords for ever because no one ever fires constantly your targets will all die before that happens.

[Loler skates]

Kmieciu, on 10 April 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Since editing XML files on the client is forbidden, I did not do the following:

I did not increase the damage for machine guns to 0.08
I did not increase to ROF machine guns to 20
I did not increase the range from 90/200 to 180/540
It did not take me less than 30 seconds using notepad.

Then I did not try out those settings in offline Testing Grounds:

It did not take 10 seconds to kill a stock Commando @ 90 meters using 4 machine guns (6.75 seconds using 4 Small Lasers)
It did not take 23 seconds to kill a stock Commando @ 180 meters using 4 machine guns (20 seconds using 1 Medium Pulse Laser)

But If the Devs implemented those changes, Machineguns would become useful, yet not overpowered weapons.

PS. Spraying machine guns at 500 meters wound be immensely satisfying, albeit rather useless :-)

Pinselborste, on 10 April 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

yeah, thats 1.6 dps, 60% more than the SL has but it still takes longer to kill something with them,

reducing the spread by some % and it would be totally fine.

amazing how simply and easy it is, yet pgi can't mange it. :|

Tennex, on 10 April 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Reasons to buff the MG.

1. Light mechs need something for the ballistic slot.
2. MGs currently do 1/3 the damage of light lasers (which are already underutilized and rarely used effectively)
3. It currently takes 40s for a 6 MG jagermech to core an atlas from the back. It takes 12s for a 6 sl stalker.
4. MGs have horrendous range.
5. MG damage is spread
6. Critical component only accounts for 1/3 of a mech's health and is a bad balancing mechanic.
7. By the time a MG begins to crit a component. a light laser already killed the enemy mech. DESTORYING ALL OF ITS COMPONENTS.
8. Speaking from a realism point, the MG weighs 1.5 tons. And is not the same machine gun we use today. This much heavier machine gun is used by mechs against mechs.
9. MG predated infantry and vehicles in Battletech
10. They deal 2 damage per turn vs. MECHS in TT. That's the same as an AC2, with (a lot) less range.


Reasons not to:

6 MG spiders.
3 second jenners?

Yea but all that makes far to much sense.

CRIT SEEKING IT IS. (lol crits) *snort*

[Loler skates]

Kmieciu, on 11 April 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

Then why do the machineguns are using random cone of fire and spread damage across multiple locations?

I think a dev was touched inappropriately by a battle tech machine gun as a child :|

[Waking One]

buttmonkey, on 21 April 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

but what is the point in machine guns? correct me if im wrong but arent they for anti personel purposes? and correct me agan if im wrong, but didnt pgi say they wouldnt be having troops/elementals etc in this game?

so why are mgs in the game to begin with.
its actually a little confusing. why have them when thier intended targets are not in game.
maybe im missing something

No, in tabletop they can damage mechs, mech machineguns are anti-mech weapons that just happen to be jolly good at slaughtering infantry is all.

[Loler skates]

Alilua, on 11 April 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

How many pages does it take to get through to the center of a pgi dev?
idk I've never done it...

pgi devs have regenerative CT armour.

Unless they are hit by a hundred posts in a short time frame you will never core them with your insight.

[Loler skates]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 11 April 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

One more chart.

Compared single machine gun to single small laser. Time shown above is average time required to destroy a weapon in given component for selected mechs. This does not include time to strip armour from component! Stock mechs are used as targets, in most cases they only have one weapon in any given location. Notice that for weapons located in center torso time to destroy by MG fire is significantly longer (because engine takes most of critical hits that currently have no effect on engines, actuators etc.). Time to destroy component is shown for reference - for SL it is often equal to the time reqired to destroy a weapon, that means that weapon wasn't succesfully crited before component destruction. Notice that for light mech time required to destroy component by SL is shorter than time to destroy a weapon in this component using MG.

As mentioned above - this chart shows values for components with already removed armour and does not show time needed to do so. Just for comparition: you need about 44 seconds to strip armour from stock Commando's center torso front using single MG. Small laser can do it in about 14 seconds. In general - max armour value on any component is two times greater than that component HP, so we can safely assume that time to remove armour from component would be two times higher than time required to destroy it listed above (Eg: Atlas' arm with full armour - MG would need roughly 178s of constant fire to strip armour, and than 11 seconds more to destroy ML located there, so total time would be about 189s [over 3 minutes! not to mention that it would take more than one ton of MG ammo]. Single small laser would destroy that arm in about 75s - almost three times faster!)
On a side note: in training grounds MG fire rate is slightly lower than 9 shots per second (not 10 as officialy stated). Some guys tested it in live game and it is even lower there. That reduces MG usefullness even further.

You used factual analysis against PGI.

But it's not very effective!

PGI uses volunteer moderation team

It's super-effective!

Krzysztof z Bagien fainted!

PGI has beaten Krzysztof z Bagien